Pro-Trek or pro-Wars?

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:13 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Alyeska as a pro-Trek debater could only fly at SDN among the SDN core. Nowhere else does he seem to qualify.
You are operating under a flawed definition of what qualifies a Trekkie. You assume that person must believe Trek is more powerful then Wars. This is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. The term Pro-Trek itself merely indicates someone is in favor of Trek. Does Pro-Trek mean that someone will support Trek 100% of the time in every situation? Would you rationally argue that to be Pro-Trek you have to believe a TOS era shuttle craft could take down the Death Star? When you get right down to it Pro-Trek is a preference of what you argue. It doesn't mean you will side with Trek in every situation.

The nature of the arguments and discussions I have been in since I first entered the VS debates clearly puts me in the camp of Pro-Trek. I favor it first and foremost above all other universes. I am on a different point of the scale then some people, that is all. To accuse me of not being Pro-Trek is ignorant and hateful. One could easily argue that I am biased, but I can just as rightly point out that everyone is biased and the statement itself is relatively meaningless.

Some people don't like the arguments I have made. But instead of discussing or attacking the arguments, they see fit to attack my character. That doesn't bode well for their character.

And for the record, I have resigned my position at SD.net and left the forums entirely. My reasons are personal.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:40 am

Alyeska wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Alyeska as a pro-Trek debater could only fly at SDN among the SDN core. Nowhere else does he seem to qualify.
You are operating under a flawed definition of what qualifies a Trekkie.
Not Trekkie. A "pro-Trek debater." The two are entirely distinct.
You assume that person must believe Trek is more powerful then Wars.
In order to be called a "pro-Trek" debater in a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, you do indeed need to be making assertions favorable to Star Trek relative to Star Wars, at least more so than the average partisan of the VS debate. It's simple; it's definitional.
This is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Not at all.
The term Pro-Trek itself merely indicates someone is in favor of Trek. Does Pro-Trek mean that someone will support Trek 100% of the time in every situation? Would you rationally argue that to be Pro-Trek you have to believe a TOS era shuttle craft could take down the Death Star? When you get right down to it Pro-Trek is a preference of what you argue. It doesn't mean you will side with Trek in every situation.
And siding with Trek more often than the average such partisan would be the minimum to qualify, Alyeska.
The nature of the arguments and discussions I have been in since I first entered the VS debates clearly puts me in the camp of Pro-Trek.
Only - as I said earlier - relative to SDN. In relation to other communities, e.g., SB.com, here, and elsewhere, you do not appear to favor Trek more than the typical individual, but less. It is a matter of standards; among a continuous spectrum from those who think Star Wars could curbstomp Star Trek to those who think Star Trek could curbstomp Star Wars, you seem to fall rather closer to the former extreme than the latter.

I like to think that I am perfectly fair and consistent of my treatment of the two franchises, but I readily acknowledge that by the standards of, say, SDN, I would be called clearly and dramatically pro-Trek.

Do you understand now why it is that from all that I have heard, it is only in the community associated with SDN that you are considered to be on the "side" of Star Trek by those dividing debaters into partisan sides?
I favor it first and foremost above all other universes. I am on a different point of the scale then some people, that is all. To accuse me of not being Pro-Trek is ignorant and hateful. One could easily argue that I am biased, but I can just as rightly point out that everyone is biased and the statement itself is relatively meaningless.

Some people don't like the arguments I have made. But instead of discussing or attacking the arguments, they see fit to attack my character. That doesn't bode well for their character.

And for the record, I have resigned my position at SD.net and left the forums entirely. My reasons are personal.
"Everyone" may have biases; however, there is a difference in both display and kind of bias present. The fact that on SB.com you have been perceived as a partisan of Stardestroyer.net, standing clearly against Star Trek and in favor of Star Wars, is an indication that you have shown them an evident bias in that regard.

If it is a perception you do not want, then it is up to you to show them otherwise. I don't think simply saying that you're a Trekkie and love Star Trek above all other franchises is going to convince many people that you should be called a pro-Trek debater.

Dragoon
Bridge Officer
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:26 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Dragoon » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:54 pm

If I might be allowed to add my two cents:

I don't know all that much about Alyeska here, being new to the debate. I've been hanging out at SB.com for a week or two now, and here for a bit longer. I don't really feel like paying the reg fee over at SDN.net and I don't like the atmosphere over there anyway.

Regardless, from what I have observed Alyeska is a fan of Trek and does argue for Trek when he thinks it has a reasonable chance of winning (in his view). His opinion differentiates on the issue of SW v. ST. I don't particuarly have an issue with that. I personally do not buy into the ICS, but Alyeska has his own opinions regarding that issue and I'm not sure that he should be defined by our own own defenition of "pro-Trek" debator. Sure, he doesn't think that ST can win against SW but he can have that opinion. We think differently and he shouldn't be disparaged for that.

That's my two bits.

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:27 pm

Of course he is entitled to an opinion, but if Alyeska is going to be categorized then it should be done accurately. As JMS states it is quite simple, if you think ST (usually the UFP) would beat SW (the Empire) then you are a pro-Trek debater, if you think that SW would defeat ST then you are a pro-Wars debater. Here's the poll http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=198 cast your vote. I don't care if Alyeska is a pro-Trek debater or not, but since we use such lables then at least they shoul be right.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:14 pm

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:Of course he is entitled to an opinion, but if Alyeska is going to be categorized then it should be done accurately. As JMS states it is quite simple, if you think ST (usually the UFP) would beat SW (the Empire) then you are a pro-Trek debater, if you think that SW would defeat ST then you are a pro-Wars debater. Here's the poll http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=198 cast your vote. I don't care if Alyeska is a pro-Trek debater or not, but since we use such lables then at least they shoul be right.
That definition of Pro-Trek is fataly flawed. It leaves no reason for rational thought, logic, and intelligence. According to your definition the only way to be Pro-Trek is to support Trek over Wars, period. You just killed your position in the debate by admitting your are primarily biased and will not take the situation into account.

As I already pointed out, one would not argue that a TOS Shuttle could take on the Death Star.

Pro-Trek is nothing more then arguing in favor of Trek whenever possible.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:19 pm

A TOS shuttle vs a DS is not the issue they are talking of. The point is in the end...overall and/or just in general terms...which do you come down on more often than not. Is Trek more typically to win in your view, civilization versus civilization or is Wars?

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:25 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Not Trekkie. A "pro-Trek debater." The two are entirely distinct.

In order to be called a "pro-Trek" debater in a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, you do indeed need to be making assertions favorable to Star Trek relative to Star Wars, at least more so than the average partisan of the VS debate. It's simple; it's definitional.

And siding with Trek more often than the average such partisan would be the minimum to qualify, Alyeska.
That definition is worthless. It is entirely situational. You are Pro-Trek based purely on the topics discussed. If topics largely consist of Trek vs Culture, one suddenly becomes Pro-Culture. It makes absolutely no allowances for variable situations.
Only - as I said earlier - relative to SDN. In relation to other communities, e.g., SB.com, here, and elsewhere, you do not appear to favor Trek more than the typical individual, but less. It is a matter of standards; among a continuous spectrum from those who think Star Wars could curbstomp Star Trek to those who think Star Trek could curbstomp Star Wars, you seem to fall rather closer to the former extreme than the latter.
I most certainly favor Trek. I argue on its behalf whenever I think it is possible. That I happen to agree that ICS is canon does not change this. What it means is in relation to Trek and Wars I believe Wars as a series of fundamental advantages.
I like to think that I am perfectly fair and consistent of my treatment of the two franchises, but I readily acknowledge that by the standards of, say, SDN, I would be called clearly and dramatically pro-Trek.
Who the hell cares what SDN thinks?
Do you understand now why it is that from all that I have heard, it is only in the community associated with SDN that you are considered to be on the "side" of Star Trek by those dividing debaters into partisan sides?
Aside for a handful of people at SB.com I am acknowledged as a Pro-Trek debater. The people who often accuse me of not being a pro-Trek debater are the people you really don't want to be debating with because of the multitude of flaws in their reasoning and analysis. I have a long history with Trek on SB.com.
"Everyone" may have biases; however, there is a difference in both display and kind of bias present. The fact that on SB.com you have been perceived as a partisan of Stardestroyer.net, standing clearly against Star Trek and in favor of Star Wars, is an indication that you have shown them an evident bias in that regard.
Frankly, whoever thinks that I am a partisan of SD.net is an idiot. There is a difference between knowing what side would win in a debate and what side you favor. But if your going to use your definition, go right ahead. Its absolutely worthless and subject to change whenever the thread goes onto a different topic or direction.
If it is a perception you do not want, then it is up to you to show them otherwise. I don't think simply saying that you're a Trekkie and love Star Trek above all other franchises is going to convince many people that you should be called a pro-Trek debater.
I will settle with being called a rational and logical debater. I don't let my bias dictate who I think will win an engagement.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:28 pm

GStone wrote:A TOS shuttle vs a DS is not the issue they are talking of. The point is in the end...overall and/or just in general terms...which do you come down on more often than not. Is Trek more typically to win in your view, civilization versus civilization or is Wars?
And as I've already said that is a worthless way to term the issue at hand.

Just to make a point. What civilization from Trek? What civilization from Wars? Is the Borg vs the Ewoks? Or is this the Federation vs the Old Republic (which era of either?).

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:35 pm

You just killed your position in the debate by admitting your are primarily biased and will not take the situation into account.
Not true, I do take the situation into account. I think the two are fairly evenly matched, but the UFP would prevail in a war with the Empire. I don't think an Excelsior could take on 30 ISDs and win. As for bias, yes I have come to the conclusion that in general ST is more powerful than SW and until I feel that it has been demonstrated that this is not true I will continue to advocate for it. I am of not so set in my ways that I cannot be swayed by logic and fact, but I have yet to see much evidence that is indicative, never mind conclusive of a super powerful Empire.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:10 pm

Alyeska wrote:
GStone wrote:A TOS shuttle vs a DS is not the issue they are talking of. The point is in the end...overall and/or just in general terms...which do you come down on more often than not. Is Trek more typically to win in your view, civilization versus civilization or is Wars?
And as I've already said that is a worthless way to term the issue at hand.

Just to make a point. What civilization from Trek? What civilization from Wars? Is the Borg vs the Ewoks? Or is this the Federation vs the Old Republic (which era of either?).
Funny. I'm talking of the ones usually debated in TvW- Federation and the Empire.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:23 pm

Alyeska wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Not Trekkie. A "pro-Trek debater." The two are entirely distinct.

In order to be called a "pro-Trek" debater in a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, you do indeed need to be making assertions favorable to Star Trek relative to Star Wars, at least more so than the average partisan of the VS debate. It's simple; it's definitional.

And siding with Trek more often than the average such partisan would be the minimum to qualify, Alyeska.
That definition is worthless. It is entirely situational. You are Pro-Trek based purely on the topics discussed. If topics largely consist of Trek vs Culture, one suddenly becomes Pro-Culture. It makes absolutely no allowances for variable situations.
Read more carefully. "At least more so than the average partisan." If everybody says the Culture could beat Trek, the distinction (if there is any) lies solely in how badly you think the Culture could beat Trek.

It's really quite a simple description; you'll find that it's very intuitive. If someone holds a higher opinion of communists than the norm for their society, they are "pro-Communist." If they hold a lower opinion, they are "anti-Communist."

Is it situational? Of course. This is hardly unusual for a useful label. Some people find race labels useful - whether in talking about race as a social construct in critical discourse or in rallying a lynch mob - but if you do, you will find that the labels of race vary according to situation. "White" and "black," for example, do not mean the same thing in different countries.

Are these labels useless? No. It is perhaps better to avoid throwing them around, but they do have some uses at present.
Who the hell cares what SDN thinks?
Manners, please.
Aside for a handful of people at SB.com I am acknowledged as a Pro-Trek debater.
This is not what I have seen, a handful of people complaining while most agree with your claim to being a pro-Trek debater. What I have seen is a remarkably sharp division in whether you are described as pro-Trek or pro-Wars, a division based primarily on community context.
I will settle with being called a rational and logical debater. I don't let my bias dictate who I think will win an engagement.
By all means, you are welcome to make every reasonable effort to establish that reputation here.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:14 am

GStone wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
GStone wrote:A TOS shuttle vs a DS is not the issue they are talking of. The point is in the end...overall and/or just in general terms...which do you come down on more often than not. Is Trek more typically to win in your view, civilization versus civilization or is Wars?
And as I've already said that is a worthless way to term the issue at hand.

Just to make a point. What civilization from Trek? What civilization from Wars? Is the Borg vs the Ewoks? Or is this the Federation vs the Old Republic (which era of either?).
Funny. I'm talking of the ones usually debated in TvW- Federation and the Empire.
That breaks your argument. Its nothing about Trek vs Wars. Its merely opinions on Federation vs Empire.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:18 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:By all means, you are welcome to make every reasonable effort to establish that reputation here.
You cared to judge me on another forum you have little experience about. Now its my responsibility to prove you wrong over here? Doesn't work that way. As far as this forum is concerned I am neutral since as you say I have no reputation here. But as you have already judged me from somewhere else, you would be well advised to judge me on my reputation over there rather then from hearsay. Believing what Nonamer says blindly is not going to get you the truth as he has outright lied about the circumstances of my no longer being a moderator.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:51 am

Alyeska wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:By all means, you are welcome to make every reasonable effort to establish that reputation here.
You cared to judge me on another forum you have little experience about. Now its my responsibility to prove you wrong over here? Doesn't work that way. As far as this forum is concerned I am neutral since as you say I have no reputation here. But as you have already judged me from somewhere else, you would be well advised to judge me on my reputation over there rather then from hearsay. Believing what Nonamer says blindly is not going to get you the truth as he has outright lied about the circumstances of my no longer being a moderator.
You clearly do have something of a reputation here already, or we wouldn't have been talking about you at all. Does that pose an obstacle to establishing a new reputation? Yes. Am I "judging" - judging whether or not to apply a fairly arbitrary label - solely from hearsay, Nonamer's testimony here? No, of course not.

Does laying claim to the label matter that much to you? Think on that carefully. You aren't obligated to prove me wrong here at all.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:02 am

Alyeska wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:By all means, you are welcome to make every reasonable effort to establish that reputation here.
You cared to judge me on another forum you have little experience about. Now its my responsibility to prove you wrong over here? Doesn't work that way. As far as this forum is concerned I am neutral since as you say I have no reputation here. But as you have already judged me from somewhere else, you would be well advised to judge me on my reputation over there rather then from hearsay. Believing what Nonamer says blindly is not going to get you the truth as he has outright lied about the circumstances of my no longer being a moderator.
Again with the "lie," even though your own words are evidence against you. I can see what is obvious right in front of me and I can call it as such.

Post Reply