The Instigator
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
SCOTSKNIGHT12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Star Wars Debate: Who is the Better Military Leader

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2014 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 62175
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

bsh1

Pro

Preface

I'm in a nerdy mood--and would like to do a Star Wars debate in tandem with my Star Trek debate. Please have some prior knowledge of the Star Wars films and extended universe if you wish to accept. You must also have at least 3 completed debates to accept this debate, and 2500 ELO to vote on this debate.

Full Topic

Grand Admiral Thrawn was a better military leader than [insert name here.]

Terms

Better - more skillful
Military - of or relating to soldiers or the armed forces (such as the army, navy, marines, and air force)
Leader - a person who has commanding authority or influence
[http://www.merriam-webster.com......]

Options

Pro must defend that Grand Admiral Thrawn [http://starwars.wikia.com......] is the better military leader than whomever Con selects.

Con must select one of the following 16 individuals and defend that individual as better than Grand Admiral Thrawn:


Admiral Gial Ackbar [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Han Solo [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
Admiral Natasi Daala [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Garm bel Iblis [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
Admiral Zsinj [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Grievous [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Wedge Antilles [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Jan Dodonna [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
High Admiral Treuten Teradoc [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Lando Calrissian [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
Admiral Gilad Pellaeon [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
Warmaster Tsavong Lah [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Maximilian Veers [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
General Crix Madine [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
Admiral Nek Bwua'tu [http://starwars.wikia.com......]
Emperor Jagged Fel [http://starwars.wikia.com......]




Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. Wookieepedia shall be considered a valid source, as shall all official Star Warsmovies, TV shows,and other official/cannon publishedmaterial
6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure

R1: Acceptance (specify which leader you choose to defend)
R2: Constructive Cases
R3: Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4: Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case
R5: Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, Summaries

Thanks...

...to whomever accepts; I look forward to a nerdgasmic debate!
SCOTSKNIGHT12

Con

I accept this debate and the person I will be choosing is Wilhuff Tarkin. He fought the republic and the galactic empire.
Debate Round No. 1
bsh1

Pro

Unfortunately, Con MUST have selected from one of 16 potential candidates, and Wilhuf Tarkington was not one of those candidates. Since the set-up of the debate required him to select an admissible entry and identify that choice in round 1, and since has has not done this, pursuant to rule 6 Con has lost the debate. Please VOTE PRO.
SCOTSKNIGHT12

Con

This is the worst debate ever stop rules this site is also made to have and disobey the rules not make a bunch of news!!!
Debate Round No. 2
bsh1

Pro

The rules were very clearly spelled out--Con knew exactly what was required of him when he accepted this debate.

If he had wanted to do Tarkin, he could've messaged me beforehand asking if that would be okay, he could've started his own debate, or he could've posted a query in the comments. Instead, he chose to blatantly disregard the rules of the debate. That is on him, not on me.

You can't willingly agree to something and then complain that it's not what you wanted--Con knew the terms, and he has to live with them.
SCOTSKNIGHT12

Con

actually if you want me to read rules put them at the top of the page
Debate Round No. 3
bsh1

Pro

The rules were posted at the top of the page, in round one, which was the first space available to list them. It is Con's job to know what he's getting into, and to read the whole introduction. I should not be penalized with a tied or lost debate due to Con's failure to read carefully and fully.
SCOTSKNIGHT12

Con

at the top of your preface and to me it said accept if you want to debate about your favorite military leader
Debate Round No. 4
bsh1

Pro

Con, why do you think I write everything in R1? Because all of it is important to the debate at hand. It is standard on DDO to include rules and explanations of the debate in R1, and the onus is on you to ensure that you actually read those terms and conditions.

Vote Pro. Thank you.
SCOTSKNIGHT12

Con

If I lose I don't care because all I did was look up top ten star wars military leaders and that one was in second or third ok. Vote Pro all you want I don't CARE!!!
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
What a great and interesting debate topic, too bad it was ruined by a moron...
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
But that is what a dictionary is SUPPOSED to do--i.e. they are supposed to offer colloquial definitions. Just as someone who reads a scholarly paper should understand how to interpret its formatting, so too should a reader of a dictionary be literate it how to use it. It's not the dictionaries fault, and it doesn't make the dictionary unreliable. MW is one of the most credible dictionaries out there.

I did re-post it.
Posted by Luie 2 years ago
Luie
I wouldn't say it's reliable if its misunderstood by its readers because of the examples they give and how the page is designed to define that word. If I was talking to someone about what a religion is or is not, I linked them to MW's definition, and they came back saying "It says hockey can be called a religion." I don't think MW is the best source to get my information as oppose to a dictionary that doesn't include that. At least, not an online one. Ironically, the only dictionary in my house currently is MW. I haven't picked it up in a while, but I guarantee it doesn't have an entire page of information for one word like the online version does, and that might even make it more reliable for me to use than the online version. But alas, it will not fit through my screen.

Anyway, did you repost this debate? I feel like everyone's pretty bummed about how this turned out. :/
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Then it is the reader's problem for misunderstanding how a dictionary functions, not MW's problem for being a dictionary.

MW is a totally reliable source.
Posted by Luie 2 years ago
Luie
I do not, but many others do. That's why I said it was a problem.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
You are misunderstanding the function of examples of a terms use in a dictionary. Examples are designed to illustrate colloquial usage--that is precisely what MW does. You are overthinking it. Examples are not definitions, so you shouldn't apply the same standard to examples as you do to definitions.
Posted by Luie 2 years ago
Luie
Yes, but then they go on to say Atheism is an antonym of religion. So hockey is a religion, except when the hockey players are Atheists. I don't even see how Atheism could be an antonym of Religion by the definitions they give, because according to their word usage, Atheism wouldn't have anything to do with religion. Yet they are antonyms.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
MW's definitions are accurate--they're good definitions.

The examples are supposed to be instances of colloquial usage of the word to reflect everyday use of the term. Tons of people refer to sports or other institutions as religions due to the fanaticism of the fan base--so MW's example of hockey being a religion is great because it captures a way in which the term is often employed.
Posted by Luie 2 years ago
Luie
Yes, I said MW said hockey is a religion. Yes, I said their definitions can be vague. I never said MW defined hockey as a religion, I mean they literally said "Hockey is a religion (in Canada)." And yes, you can say their definitions don't have to be factually accurate, but those are the examples they chose to provide for that word, and even if MW is choosing not to be accurate, people are misinterpreting those words and using them incorrectly because of those examples.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
You wrote: "Merriam Webster online says that hockey is a religion...Their definitions can be extremely vague." This very clearly implies that MW defined hockey that way.

In fact, MW never says hockey is a religion. Examples don't have to be factually accurate, they can be opinions or things an average person might say. That is what MW did.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
bsh1SCOTSKNIGHT12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CON broke the rules.... bah.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
bsh1SCOTSKNIGHT12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, all you had to do was select a new character from the list in Round 2, and the debate could have proceeded... I hope Pro does this debate again sometime; it looked like it could have been interesting :(
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
bsh1SCOTSKNIGHT12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Reading comprehension is fun.