User talk:The Debater/Archive1

Please do not edit this page. It is an archive.

Barack Obama Biography Page

Wow guys. I was browsing RationalWiki aimlessly, and decided to stumble upon the biography of President Obama. You guys did a remarkably good job on that page!! I can't believe I can say this, but that article infuses roughly an equal amount of bias from BOTH sides of the issues?! Again, thanks for making a page that actually leans to the unbiased section. One suggestion, you guys should infuse it with some more facts (to make it more like Wikipedia's page on him). Great job.--The Debater (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should we make it like Wikipedia's page, when Wikipedia's page is already like Wikipedia's page? Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 01:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page on Obama states many facts about him. This is what people look for in a wiki. Having many facts to back up what is told is most optimal. A wiki should not state as many opinions as this one. I understand your 'Wikipedia shouldn't be copy-cated because it already exists' opinion, but it is known that people look for facts. If more facts were instituted, then that page would be right up there with Wikipedia's. I think that everyone wants that.--The Debater (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

While we use the same software as Wikipedia, our mission is very different. We are not an encyclopedia, we more like are a clearing-house for particular kinds of critiques, opinions and arguments. Hopefully, those critiques, opinions and arguments will be backed up by facts, but we are not an encyclopedia. Where, exactly, in the definition of "wiki" does it say that the software should be used to power projects that state more "facts" than "opinion"? Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 02:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If it requires facts over opinion to have a wiki than all those fandom wikia pages are doomed. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 02:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess a wiki doesn't require facts. It would just be better with them.--The Debater (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me what a "wiki" is. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 02:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the 'wiki' definition on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki. Sorry for calling it a wiki, I meant a wiki-encyclopedia.--The Debater (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's you're problem. We are, as noted above, not an encyclopedia. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 12:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. Then what is the goal (as far as every page goes)? I know that I would want some facts within a RationalWiki page (or any web page). If everyone agreed with the opinion of the page, more facts would not make the page any better. Not everyone agrees with the page, so it must include some standard to back-up the opinion. You get what i'm saying?--The Debater (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The goal, explained. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I get your meaning. I guess you can't change a whole website to what you want it to be. It still was a good page though (The Obama Biography). Good discussion.--The Debater (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Where's the Goat option?

When in Rome and all that. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is none. If you don't like the poll, don't vote.--The Debater (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page topic storage discussion

Does anyone know what I could do with my 'talk' page space after it fills up with different discussions. What I mean is: is there any way to store the topics in relation to date, like a archive of old posts? I looked at "User:Hipocrite"'s talk page on Wikipedia [his talk page], and it did something like that. That's what gave me the idea. You guys know?--The Debater (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What you cut from this page, paste into User talk:The Debater/Archive1 (and then ~/Archive2 and on and on...)

Putting {{talkpage}} at the top of this talk page will make a little green box with links to the archived stuff. See Template:Talkpage for more details. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you soo much. Very detailed answer. I'll do that.--The Debater (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Question, how do you delete an archive page after you've created it, and can it state the month of the last revision in the list of archives?--The Debater (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't delete it. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay... then can you answer my second question.--The Debater (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You can over-write that first archive page with the actual posts you eventually remove from here, and I don't think anyone will call shenanigans.

If you put {{talkpage|archivedate}} on an archive page, it will display the date the page was most recently modified. If there is a way to date-index the links in the little navbox on the parent talk page, I don't know it. My talk page is not a busy one, so I haven't yet needed that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, alright... just wondering. In the "User:hipocrite" talk page I linked to above, he had it that way. That's my goal here.--The Debater (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That's on Wikipedia. I believe there is a different version of the (WIkimedia?) software running there. Sorry, can't help. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's alright. Thanks for the help.--The Debater (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to Web Developers

Hi guys. I have a little tip for you (not sure if you're able to use it for RationalWiki). When going to RationalWiki.org, the browser redirects you to the main page (like it should). The only problem with that is that it uses an old redirection method that is noticed by the browser as an automatic redirection, and some people (like me) set up their browsers so that it blocks and asks whenever that happens. If you are able, you should set up a way for a file named 'index.html' to directly reference the main page (without 'index.html' actually existent. Just a server-side script that directly references the main page). I believe that this would fix the problem. (Note: i'm not an experienced server-side-scripter, but I do a bit of html work)--The Debater (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This will get noticed by the right people if you put it here. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 15:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks--The Debater (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about actuality of famous people's accounts

Am I correct that Hillary Clinton and Al Gore DO NOT have accounts on RationalWiki? I just can't see them actually participating in this organization.--The Debater (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm Hillary. Glad you noticed! ^pathetic 02:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Now... Here's the problem with the open web... ANYONE can say that they are ANYBODY. So, in that case, i'm President Obama (just to prove a point)! You should be ashamed, and taken off of this organization for impersonating a living person. If you were actually Mrs. Clinton, you wouldn't be wasting your precious time replying to any threads about you on this (let's just say: not so infamous) website. Go get you're account blocked, will ya.--The Debater (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But we're not Ms Clinton, we're all Helena Bonham Carter, and Spartacus. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What's with the Helena Bonham Carter trope?--Krej^talk 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point! How can you ALL be those TWO people?! I hope that the post above is stating sarcasm. Stop impersonating people!!--The Debater (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should we? Anyone with half a brain knows we're not Ms Clinton/Ms Bonham Carter/whomever. Here's a hint, Mrs Bystander doesn't call me Innocent when we cuddle up at night. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I hear the phrase "I'm Innocent" does come up a lot in the Bystanader home, especially after their nightly activities escalate from cuddling. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 15:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And while my wife often calls me a Hipocrite, she can spell it right. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The first Mrs. Cogswell used to annoy me no end, trying to seize control of ongoing activities by saying, "let's change gears."

I'm not Spartacus, but both of those guys behind the tree are definitely him. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This debate is heading off-topic. How would one of you like me to get an account here with the same username as you, and started putting words in your mouth? Would you like that? Who would it benefit?--The Debater (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Such things have happened. If the impersonation is done skilfully and with humor, the mob seems to tolerate it pretty well. If done in an evident spirit of malicious sockpuppetry, there are effective remedies to apply. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The mob might like it, but no one else would. Alright guys, thanks for the debate. It was very educating.--The Debater (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Contributing to the RationalWiki conversation makes you part of the mob. Your assertion that "no one else would" has a skimpy basis, at best. Some might, some might not, most probably don't care one way or the other—I do not believe you can speak for everybody in this matter. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, not trying to say that everybody agrees, but it seems that a real person would say who they really are rather than fake someone else.--The Debater (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You are The Debater. Let us debate.

Pick a topic, and pick a side, and we shall have a debate. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May you choose the topic, and I shall debate with you. That's my goal here. All things may be criticized, and I have successfully created a way for everyone to express their opinions. I have to thank you for being a contributor throughout my whole time on RationalWiki. Thank you so much for all your comments! God bless. Good night.--The Debater (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose the topic "The theory of Intelligent Design is of greater social benefit than the doctrines of Pastafarianism" with Powder Smoke and Leather to affirm, and The Debater to refute. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And may the last participant to vomit up their own skull win? Hydrogen and Time (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm in. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 13:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to say: i've never heard this "Pastafarianism", but it sounds like a practice of idolatry, and seems to reject any type of religion and the belief of Intelligent Design. I believe that you have me on the wrong side of this?! I not only agree that there is more social benefit from Intelligent Design, but I believe that any religion (or anything else) that states against it is a false religion. For this reason, I cannot debate with PowSmokeLeather on this, because I agree with him.--The Debater (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The side that you are actually on should be of no significance to your ability to craft a decent debate. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 13:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then you would be okay with affirming how bad of a person you are, while I refute?! I cannot refute the superiority of Intelligent Design because it is against my religious obligation.--The Debater (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're not really the "Debater," you're just the "Believer?" Got it! Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am the debater, but I am not about to support something I don't support. What sense would that make? You probably disagree with me on many topics. Choose one.--The Debater (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose the topic "The theory of Intelligent Design is of greater social benefit than the doctrines of Pastafarianism" with Powder Smoke and Leather to affirm, and The Debater to refute. Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you a Pastafarian "User:Hipocrite"?--The Debater (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It's a joke. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Then would you support it in a debate?--The Debater (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A decent debater should be able to support any position in a formal debate. Don't you/didn't you have a debating club or something similar as part of your education? She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes. But I cannot debate this topic because of my own religious obligations. I cannot defend a religion of idolatry. It doesn't make sense that I debate something that I don't agree with anyway. There are plenty of people who do not share my opinions and it shouldn't be hard to find one.--The Debater (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Check out the Wikipedia article on Debating:[1]. It does not state about supporting views that are alternate from your own anywhere in the top summary (note: I did not read the whole page).--The Debater (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the old argumentum ad vikipaediam. Don't tell me you would pull out Webster's dictionary in a debate...

What makes you think Pastafarianism is a religion of idolatry? Last month I attended a wedding in a Roman Catholic church, and I saw an awful lot of graven images there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. If you don't know enough about the opposing side to give your best rhetorical support, how can you expect to refute it accurately? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From the article you mentioned: "The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop the ability to debate rationally from either position with equal ease." She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(reply to sproket) Trust me, I know plenty about my side and the other. Did you see Jesus replaced with a stupid meatball sandwich, or were you praying to it? Any religion that puts another figure above God can be considered idolatry. The images contained in a Catholic Church are not to be prayed to, or referenced to be anything more than images. People who do so are not practicing their religion correctly. Take another look at your CCC. It'll tell you all about it.--The Debater (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(reply to PowSmokeLeather) Oh, I did not see that there. Sorry about that. Yes, that is the major goal of debate, but it does not mean that one MUST affirm an opinion that HE HIMSELF knows to be false. It is a conflict of interest.--The Debater (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it means EXACTLY that. Your only interest in the walled-off world of the competitive debate is to advance the best possible argument for or against the resolution. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Stupid meatball sandwich?" That has nothing to do with the canon of Pastafarianism. Your proclamation of knowledge rings hollow. Mmmm, onion rings... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then what do you call the deity of Pastafarianism?--The Debater (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not call upon his saucy noodliness. I'm not a Pastafarian. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(reply to Pow) If that is what debate means, then no one is doing it right.--The Debater (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that this will go nowhere, as the conversation seems to have degenerated to "I am correct and centuries of formalized practice undertaken worldwide are wrong." Leaving aside your ignorance of what "debate" is, I will still debate you on the topic and position of your choosing. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 18:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And I will you as well. I only am telling you that no one would help out something that they disagree with, and have battled with before. Thanks for the discussion.--The Debater (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Resolved: Governments with policies not in line with the teachings of Jesus are invalid, with Powder Smoke and Leather to affirm, and The Debater to refute. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, Hipocrite, That's not what i'm here for. Change the direction of that debate, and i'll do it.--The Debater (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

State an opinion of yours and you will either debate the opinion with others or find that everyone agrees with you. There is no reason to set a debate like this.--The Debater (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)