Open challenge, Match 2
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2013, 04:57 PM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(15-05-2013 04:53 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Yeah, but accountants DON'T have the image of molotov cocktails following them around, so they don't NEED to specify.

Zactly. Because they've not been portrayed as such. And don't tell anyone this but... atheists don't really eat babies.

Quote:I'm growing increasingly of the opinion that Bearded and I don't have much to debate, and I'll probably end up debating someone else.

Like I said, I'm here. If you don't care to have a discussion with me, I'm fine with that.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(15-05-2013 03:00 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(15-05-2013 02:36 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Since the debate hasn't started yet, here are a few things I would like to see you two debating on:

-Superman VS Batman (who is better)
-Death Star VS Starship USS Enterprise E (who would win)
-T-Rex VS Allosaurus (which one is the better at everything)

So yeah, probably not the best of topics. Laughat Just a new infusion since you two seem to still be circling each other. Big Grin And when I say circling, I hear the theme tune to the Kirk Spock fight to the death battle of The Enlarged Q-Tips.

Superman vs Batman: Please give a clear working definition of "better"

Death Star vs E: E. The death star's main gun couldn't hit a target that maneuvers as fast as E, and E's torpedoes are accurate enough to hit the thermal exhaust port from well, well outside of turbolaser range. (And judging by how well they faired against X-wings, they wouldn't have a prayer of shooting down a volley of inbound torpedoes.) Geordi and Data would easily localize the weak point. The TIEs would also be a joke.

T-Rex vs Allosaurus: Since you ask in the present tense, I'll call a tie for virtually all categories, because the only thing either is currently good at is BEING SOME FLAVOR OF DEAD.

Oops! Disregard present tense for the T-Rex VS Allosaurus. Blush And evaluative comparison from physical strength / hunting abilities / agility between the T-Rex and the Allosaurus.

Okay, Death Star VS E: E out the window.

Working definition for 'better' in my Batman VS Superman... Hmmm... An evaluative comparison from an ethical / moral perspective of the merits / superiority of Batman vs. Superman.

So you capslock too, eh? Big Grin

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 08:52 AM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(15-05-2013 06:08 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Oops! Disregard present tense for the T-Rex VS Allosaurus. Blush And evaluative comparison from physical strength / hunting abilities / agility between the T-Rex and the Allosaurus.

Okay, Death Star VS E: E out the window.

Working definition for 'better' in my Batman VS Superman... Hmmm... An evaluative comparison from an ethical / moral perspective of the merits / superiority of Batman vs. Superman.

So you capslock too, eh? Big Grin

Al versus T: Let's see. T would likely have had more physical strength, Al more agility. Hunting abilities are hard to pin down from the fossil record. A big part of it would be context; a lot of prey would have been simply bigger and slower in T's era. But I'd hazard that agility would be the deciding issue, given that Al would have been strong enough for most prey. (And intelligence is a factor in hunting, which is even harder to gauge after dozens of millions of years, but there's little selection pressure to be a quick thinker if you can't be a quick actor.) So I'd speculatively call it for Al, 2 to 1.

For Batman vs Superman on the ethical / moral perspective, I'm going to call non-comparable. Superman has the luxury of being nigh invulnerable, able to dominate any confrontation instantly, and subdue almost any opponent with an irresistible force that can still be totally nonlethal. (Yeah, okay, kryptonite and other aliens keeps showing up, but that's only because the writers need them for a story.) He can be completely brazen and out-front in his activities because no one can stop him. And hey, it's easy to be a moral paragon when virtually nothing threatens you and you can accomplish nearly anything.

Batman's different. Though an exceptional human, he's still human. He needs to work in the shadows because he's vulnerable to assassination, blackmail, arrest, or seizure of the gadgets and wealth that are the source of his power, and because a lot of his power comes from working in the shadows in the first place. His city is darker, more violent, more rabid, more eager to turn on him. When he pulls his punches, it seriously curtails his chances of victory. Making the "right decision" can represent serious sacrifice for him, much more easily than for Superman. Unlike Superman, he has to work for it. And as the choices and options that he faces are different, so to is what constitutes moral behavior.

So no, the contexts in which the two act are too different to compare their actions on the same scale. I'm calling them non-comparable.

Warning Labels: Long-winded. Twisted sense of humor (including puns, literalisms, absurdisms, all complicated by sarcasm and deadpan delivery). Contrarian. Do not combine with high quantities of sugar, acid (corrosive or hallucinogenic), or people who take themselves too seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 08:53 AM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(15-05-2013 04:57 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Like I said, I'm here. If you don't care to have a discussion with me, I'm fine with that.

Well, call out a challenge, pick a topic, and we'll get the ball rolling.

Warning Labels: Long-winded. Twisted sense of humor (including puns, literalisms, absurdisms, all complicated by sarcasm and deadpan delivery). Contrarian. Do not combine with high quantities of sugar, acid (corrosive or hallucinogenic), or people who take themselves too seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
So far no balls have started rolling.

Why don't you come up with one you know fits properly in your views as a good debate topic and see if someone is willing to take the challenge.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(16-05-2013 08:53 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(15-05-2013 04:57 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Like I said, I'm here. If you don't care to have a discussion with me, I'm fine with that.

Well, call out a challenge, pick a topic, and we'll get the ball rolling.

Very well then. Edumacatin the little ones.


As I'm a bit short of time, I'll try to give a brief summary of my position...

I don't see the current model of schooling to be of any value. In fact, I see it as producing a net positive outcome for most kids... particularly the more intelligent and those with unhealthy home environments.

150 years ago, the classroom model of education was sufficient (although still not ideal) because there was not as much to learn and because psychologically, people were more inclined toward accepting arbitrary authority. However, this model does harm today because children are much more intelligent now and they're exposed to much more freedom of choice than ever before.

Owing to those facts, the idea of being forced to sit in a room and perform rote memorization of minutia is a completely foreign idea to children today. It's opposite to what they're exposed to elsewhere in their lives and the results of continuing this practice are observed in ever decreasing literacy rates and ever increasing violence within the school environment.

Education cannot be a one, two or even ten size fits all proposition. Each child learns at a different pace and those learning paces even differ in the same child across different subjects. This should be capitalized upon through allowing children to pursue their immediate interests in learning. For instance, I kid who likes drawing but hates math should not be forced to do math. He will learn the necessary math skills once he decides to say, investigate architecture. When he figures out that he must learn math in order t pursue his passion for drawing bridges... he will learn math and he will do so without conflict.

The sort of education I'm describing is called un-schooling and the people who are using this technique are enjoying remarkable success.

That's all for now... gotta go pay the bills.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(16-05-2013 11:01 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(16-05-2013 08:53 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Well, call out a challenge, pick a topic, and we'll get the ball rolling.

Very well then. Edumacatin the little ones.


As I'm a bit short of time, I'll try to give a brief summary of my position...

I don't see the current model of schooling to be of any value. In fact, I see it as producing a net positive outcome for most kids... particularly the more intelligent and those with unhealthy home environments.

150 years ago, the classroom model of education was sufficient (although still not ideal) because there was not as much to learn and because psychologically, people were more inclined toward accepting arbitrary authority. However, this model does harm today because children are much more intelligent now and they're exposed to much more freedom of choice than ever before.

Owing to those facts, the idea of being forced to sit in a room and perform rote memorization of minutia is a completely foreign idea to children today. It's opposite to what they're exposed to elsewhere in their lives and the results of continuing this practice are observed in ever decreasing literacy rates and ever increasing violence within the school environment.

Education cannot be a one, two or even ten size fits all proposition. Each child learns at a different pace and those learning paces even differ in the same child across different subjects. This should be capitalized upon through allowing children to pursue their immediate interests in learning. For instance, I kid who likes drawing but hates math should not be forced to do math. He will learn the necessary math skills once he decides to say, investigate architecture. When he figures out that he must learn math in order t pursue his passion for drawing bridges... he will learn math and he will do so without conflict.

The sort of education I'm describing is called un-schooling and the people who are using this technique are enjoying remarkable success.

That's all for now... gotta go pay the bills.

I'm guessing you meant net negative outcome in your fourth sentence.

I'd disagree on several of your foundational premises.

First, there isn't one system. There's hundreds or thousands at work in this country -- I couldn't begin to count them all -- most loosely related by theme and regulation but still not identical. State systems and district systems and individual classroom systems and extracurricular systems, public systems and private systems, single-subject systems and interdisciplinary systems. I will take your comments to be a discussion of the aggregate, and shall attempt the same language myself, but be aware that I don't share the same paradigm.

You say that you do not see the current system is being of value, and then go on to discuss edge cases as support. Though I do agree that such cases are important, should be handled differently, and shouldn't be allowed to slip through the cracks, the measure of the system's value must be weighted most heavily for how it deals with most classes of students, most of the time. And for such average cases, I do view education as a positive. Can it be better? Are their better alternatives? Yes. I think very few things in the world have no room for improvement. But I regard it as better than its absence would be.

Also, your description of a classroom as a place where students are forced to sit in place and memorize minutia is... narrow. Accurate in some cases, but woefully inaccurate in others. There are several approaches to classroom education currently employed at the level of the individual classroom, school, or even district that actively reject that model.

That said, I'm familiar with unschooling, albeit not as much as I'd like to be. I don't think it's a good fit for everyone (one size doesn't fit all), but properly implemented for the right students, it appears extremely potent, and is probably the sort of approach I would take if I was homeschooling my own children. (For a similar model that is school-based, see Sudbury schools.) I would like the public system to make incremental (though not sweeping; sweeping is never good on that large a scale) changes in that sort of direction, but the nature and extent of political oversight and standards-based education makes such a move extremely unlikely in the present climate.

I'd also strongly favor SOME minimum standards. The kid who loves art but hates math should, at some point, at least learn to make change.

Warning Labels: Long-winded. Twisted sense of humor (including puns, literalisms, absurdisms, all complicated by sarcasm and deadpan delivery). Contrarian. Do not combine with high quantities of sugar, acid (corrosive or hallucinogenic), or people who take themselves too seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 10:30 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2013 10:34 AM by bbeljefe.)
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
(17-05-2013 12:24 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'm guessing you meant net negative outcome in your fourth sentence.

I'd disagree on several of your foundational premises.

First, there isn't one system. There's hundreds or thousands at work in this country -- I couldn't begin to count them all -- most loosely related by theme and regulation but still not identical. State systems and district systems and individual classroom systems and extracurricular systems, public systems and private systems, single-subject systems and interdisciplinary systems. I will take your comments to be a discussion of the aggregate, and shall attempt the same language myself, but be aware that I don't share the same paradigm.

You say that you do not see the current system is being of value, and then go on to discuss edge cases as support. Though I do agree that such cases are important, should be handled differently, and shouldn't be allowed to slip through the cracks, the measure of the system's value must be weighted most heavily for how it deals with most classes of students, most of the time. And for such average cases, I do view education as a positive. Can it be better? Are their better alternatives? Yes. I think very few things in the world have no room for improvement. But I regard it as better than its absence would be.

Also, your description of a classroom as a place where students are forced to sit in place and memorize minutia is... narrow. Accurate in some cases, but woefully inaccurate in others. There are several approaches to classroom education currently employed at the level of the individual classroom, school, or even district that actively reject that model.

That said, I'm familiar with unschooling, albeit not as much as I'd like to be. I don't think it's a good fit for everyone (one size doesn't fit all), but properly implemented for the right students, it appears extremely potent, and is probably the sort of approach I would take if I was homeschooling my own children. (For a similar model that is school-based, see Sudbury schools.) I would like the public system to make incremental (though not sweeping; sweeping is never good on that large a scale) changes in that sort of direction, but the nature and extent of political oversight and standards-based education makes such a move extremely unlikely in the present climate.

I'd also strongly favor SOME minimum standards. The kid who loves art but hates math should, at some point, at least learn to make change.

Thanks for the correction. I did mean negative.

I see no examples of remarkable differences in public and even private schools. With the caveats that Sudbury and some of the public magnet schools are notably different. Beyond that, schools everywhere pretty much look the same, they use the classroom model, they're controlled through a top down hierarchical system of administration and punitive punishment and their curricula are very similar. The differences you mention are, to the whole of education, the differences between buying a red Honda Accord rather than a blue one. Or having power windows on the Accord rather than manual. They are indeed differences but in the end, you've still bought a Honda Accord and far more parts on that car are interchangeable than are not.

Edge cases are interesting examples but we have to consider that the world isn't black and white. Edge cases aren't the only bad outcomes... they're just the worst outcomes on a sliding scale that goes from worst all the way up to best. And best in this context isn't best for the child... it's best the school model can do. To wit: I often hear people say how wonderful their experience with public schools were and they're often intelligent and financially successful people. That's fine, but it doesn't prove the public school model gave you the best possible education, it only means you did okay.

In fact, looking only at financial success, the wealthiest and most philanthropic Americans struggled with and did poorly in K-12. And a plurality of them either failed out of or simply didn't attend university, which is functionally structured like a K-12 school. And in the interest of disclosure, I hated K-12 and failed miserably. I quit in grade 11, got a GED and went on to college. At college, I studied only the classes related directly to my degree and didn't even sign up for the unrelated ones. Through my 20 year career in electronics, not one person ever asked to see my college diploma.

As for judging school performance in the aggregate, I find that to be very problematic. Children are individuals, not aggregates. Regarding un schooling, it isn't that it doesn't or wouldn't work for some kids, it's that it wouldn't work for most parents. Which is another problem, especially with public schools.

In the industry of education, children are the customer. Yet as one public teacher's union member put it, "I'll start worrying about what the kids want when they start paying taxes". Imagine if the Chuck-e-Cheese company had that approach to business. I realize that's just one teacher's comment but it's a toxic attitude and I would argue that to one degree or another, it is the prevailing attitude. And it proves true on examination of the education industry writ large.

You argue that sweeping change is never good. I disagree. The abolition of slavery was a sweeping change. That said, I'm not agitating for the abolition of public schooling. That would indeed cause millions of people catastrophic problems. But what I am agitating for is at least a customer focused business model. Sadly, since public school is a government program and government is an entity that operates through force rather than voluntary negotiation, I don't see much room for improvement there.

So what to do? Educate parents and with any luck, public school rolls will slowly decline.

As minimum standards go, I don't profess to know the minimum educational standards for someone elses child. I recognize the importance of the three Rs, as it were, but I also see the majority of students who leave public school doing so with little understanding of them. A plurality are even functionally illiterate.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2013, 08:32 PM
RE: Open challenge, Match 2
This thread has turned into a forum-wide discussion. Thread moved from The Boxing Ring to TTOT.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Jeremy attempts the Cinnamon Challenge Vosur 12 291 27-11-2013 05:23 PM
Last Post: Momsurroundedbyboys
  TTA Fantasy Match ups Near 193 4,654 13-09-2013 07:14 PM
Last Post: Hughsie
Rainbow Open Challenge ~ Gay Marriage Sloane 38 1,407 13-07-2013 08:47 PM
Last Post: Erxomai
  Putting on my serious face. Open historical debate. earmuffs 42 1,102 03-11-2012 06:30 PM
Last Post: earmuffs
  When Christopher Hitchens Met His Match Jeff 1 239 05-09-2012 02:26 AM
Last Post: Misanthropik
Tongue TTA Forum Open Ended Adventure.... bemore 50 1,716 08-07-2012 05:40 AM
Last Post: Leela
Forum Jump: