it's not much of a challenge, dude. but that's cause jake is more ideological than he is focused on the issue. and he resorts to the ad hominem (like jessald) and the down vote (like janus complex). johnbonham knows all of this, so he put himself up against jakej. also, he's a pretty good debater.
321 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
There are times when you need to look at the person making the argument. For example, it's wouldn't be worthwhile to research a claim by Neo-Nazis that Jews are inferior people. Strictly speaking I do use ad-hominem sometimes, but that's just as a crap-filter. I don't have time to research every bs claim spouted by every idiot on this site. If I was debating someone with a reputation for honesty, someone who actually did a little research from time to time, only then would it be worthwhile to address their arguments and ignore everything else.
320 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
you can do the intellectual thing and ignore the morons. i do it all the time. makes me feel way better than calling someone a moron.
320 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
But then the morons won't stop being morons. One of the reasons I come to this site is to influence others. I try to be polite and respectful. But some people won't hear you unless you bring out the hammer.
319 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
basic psychology dude, people don't respond well to negativity. if you truly wanted to influence them, you would go at it another way. but you don't. and it doesn't help. it's actually counter-productive. i try to tell my Dad the same thing. it's hard to change the way someone has been for so long.
319 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
Basic psychology my ass. You just made that up. Is it true? Is it false? Who knows?? Who cares?? It sounds reasonable so let's just throw it out there as though it's a fact. Goddamn this is why debating you is so frustrating. My instinct tells me you're wrong. People respond to both negativity and positivity. You need both the carrot and the stick. Now let me go look it up... (I always have to do all the work, don't I?) ::googles::... ah, here we are... "While rewards alone have little influence on cooperation, punishments have some. When the two are combined the effect on cooperation is dramatic, suggesting that rewards and punishments are complements in producing cooperation." http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/oreuoecwp/2002-01.htm Bam. Citation. See what I did there? I made sure I'm not full of crap before opening my mouth. Anyway, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I do enjoy debating with you and have found our little exchanges useful and educational.
319 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
i'm guessing you might be talking about negative and positive reinforcement. the thing is, according to BF SKINNER (well known behavioral psychologist) the only way to get someone to actually do something is by using positive reinforcement. and, in debate terms, people will not respond well to insults. it doesn't work that way. lets say i was not a logical thinker and just read what you posted about me. I would take it in offense and just spout shit back at you. there would be NO accomplishment there.
319 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
"the only way to get someone to actually do something is by using positive reinforcement" Oh, come on. Obviously that's not the only way to get somebody to do something. If I put a gun to your head and say, "Do it," my guess is you'll do it. Well maybe not a stubborn ass like you, but most people would :) If you hit somebody in the head every time they kick a kitten, eventually they'll stop kicking kittens. If I tell you to stop spewing bullshit every time you present an opinion as a fact, eventually you'll stop spewing bullshit. Now I do like that you actually mentioned BF SKINNER (in all caps, lol). This gives me something I can use to verify your statements and makes your argument much more useful. Looking into him further, I find that rewards do seem to be more powerful than punishments. However, if you look at the link I provided earlier, it's clear that when rewards and punishments are combined the results are even better than rewards alone. Lastly, I really don't think I was being all that insulting. I was expressing some anger at you for never providing citations and explaining why I felt that way. Perhaps you are just being overly sensitive?
318 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
what you described were negative reinforcement, not punishment. putting a gun to someone's head is not a punishment. but calling someone, lets say, a stubborn ass is. yes, negative reinforcement works perfectly, as you've described. that's why we use it in coerce interrogation. but punishment hardly works. all it can do is tell a child or animal what not to do next time.
318 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
Well if you want to get all technical about it, I'd say putting a gun to someone's head is neither reinforcement nor punishment, but compulsion. My point with that example was that you were wrong when you said positive reinforcement was the only way to get someone to do something. "but punishment hardly works." As usual you've thrown out an opinion as though it's fact without any sort of reference at all. I'm going to try this one more time, nicely: Please provide some kind of reference when you make assertions like this. Also, as usual, you're wrong. In many circumstances punishment can be effective: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html "Punishment, when applied immediately following the negative behavior can be effective..." See also the study I mentioned a few arguments ago which explains that punishments combined with rewards provides an even greater improvement in behavior than rewards alone.
315 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
as i've said, when raising children or pets, punishment works. but only on teaching that certain subject that the action being punished is wrong. it doesn't teach what is right. gun to the head is negative reinforcement.
315 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
"as i've said, when raising children or pets, punishment works." And what magical quality of adults prevents punishment from affecting them? "it doesn't teach what is right." No shit. It's not supposed to. This is like saying, "My ice cream is not a taco."
314 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
but what do you think the purpose of debate is? when you call someone a name, how do you actually think that is going to persuade them that they're wrong? all it shows is your emotions getting in the way of your logic, nothing more, nothing less.
314 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
I don't think name calling is going to persuade anybody. The point is to discourage bad behavior. Also, it gives me lulz. (But mainly the first thing.) I think emotions provide a nice complement to logic. They allow people to connect on a deeper level.
313 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
Perfectly said. I totally agree. Not only because johnbonham is the one who created this debate, I agree anyway
320 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
I don't think this is fair but have at it boys! In my heart of hearts it would be johnbonham ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
321 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
Is this going to be an actual 1-on-1 debate? I remember Lawnman suggested he moderate that kind of thing, but I don't know if it was actually started. I'd love to see this happen, and since two people are mentioned here, let's let them have at it :]
320 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
Well, Lawnman has been doing some pretty innovative things with debates recently, I wouldn't be surprised if he did start something like that. For the record, seeing or participating in anything like that would be awesome.
320 days ago | Tagged As: GO
shameless point grab .............................. ..............................
233 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
|
I'm gonna say Jake, cuz I've never seen John actually debate anyone. He mostly just posts chit-chat or he states an opinion and then leaves. No offense, John :)
320 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
Boy Jess, I too have been guilty of that of late. I just cannot seem to concentrate on some of this stuff.
233 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
None taken, my friend. It's true, I don't debate other people individually that often, just opinions.
233 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
No matter how well you argue, he will not agree and he will downvote you every step of the way... but you know what, if you make 222 arguments and he downvotes all of them, you'll be one point ahead of him ;)
321 days ago | Tagged As: New Tag
Do you seriously think that I have never agreed with somebody I was debating against? I do that all the time! And I admit my mistakes. And I don't down vote every single reply. So basically everything you just said about me is false.
I don't seriously think that you have never agreed with somebody you were debating against. You do that all the time! And you admit your mistakes. And you don't down vote every single reply. So basically everything I just said about you is true?
320 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
Okay, so there are 2 people on the other side tagged as johnbonham32 and the say nothing about why I would lose and he would win so...... I guess I can do the same over here.
320 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
I see what you mean Jake and you're right BUT...as I said in my post, which I than added on to, this is not a fair debate. Naming names never is and what for. There are always better debaters than you or me and always will be. From my end, please don't take it personally but I do think that Tony is a better debater than you are overall. No offense at all meant.
320 days ago | Tagged As: johnbonham32
I haven't seen many of johnbonham32's posts, so I can't see why he wouldn't win. However, I've seen many of Jakej's posts and view him as a good debater. I can see why Jakej would win.
233 days ago | Tagged As: JakeJ
I'm with Kukla, less asking who WOULD do better, more debating. :P So....uh....Bush. haha. I love opening cans of worms. :)
320 days ago | Tagged As: GO
|
