Originally posted by ivan2908Good point Ivan.
Dude, let's say that you are really speaking the truth. Excuse us for our stupidness but WHO IN THE WORLD will believe and take for granted the "truth" of user called "cheater" ? That would be a BIG paradox.
I don't believe to cheaters usually. They don't care about their dignity and I don't care about what they have to say. Your credibility is ZERO.
It's very interesting to see cheater1 speaking so strongly about subjects based on secondary research. It is a joke, makes him sound like an opinionated college student who spends all day protesting. I have never even seen PhDs (you know the people who wrote the papers you are referencing) who devote their entire life to the research of such topics speak with such confidence since deep down they know it can be disproven at any given point by new research.
A real expert conducts his or her own primary research, writes the paper, and then presents his or her ideas in front of a worldwide panel of experts in the same field in order to be critiqued and debated. Googling and citing other people's work, claiming as fact, is a complete waste of time with the quality of research equal to an undergrad paper.
It is funny that the nobel prize winners are not the ones pounding their chests and telling people whats whats. But it those who have never succeeded in that craft that offer the strongest opinions, or in cheater1's case, "FACTS".
Originally posted by gambit3practically all top sprinters come from u.s. training background (u.s., jamaica, trinidad tobago), and almost ALL of them have ended up with a doping sentence or at least obvious connections to doping. that's been going on for almost 30 years.
He runs 400 meters. The 100 meter sprinters are the kings of the track. They are the celebrated heros. As far as the 400 meters goes. Michael Johnson.
two decades ago the exact same situation was in DDR, except all the athletes were white. some of their records have been broken only recently.
some african countries are obviously similar.
coming from an organized doping culture is no indication of genetic superiority. it's an indication of systematic cheating.
Originally posted by cheater1You are a funny cat!
Starts out by contesting Evolution as a FACT, that is not related to your original argument, so I am ignoring all of it, along with your citations which ONLY support Macro/Micro Evolution.
Conclusion. One......more.....time. Ape to man, DEBATEABLE. Not interested. Thousands of years of Man's brain evolving in a different way than a women's, so that the open. I shall NOT respond to anyone unless they post something LEGITIMATE. Cased CLOSED
The reason I provided but 1 link in my post was because you provided ZERO links in your argument!
You are slowly changing this into a pointless debate over whether evolution is a fact or a theory. I am not going to contest with you on that as it has nothing to do with your original argument. And with your most recent post that I quote, your first 3 articles are ALL about evolution and contrasting micro/macro evolution. NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ARGUMENT! We are NOT debating evolution: theory or fact. Send that debate to the Spiritual forum.
Again, man being more analytical, let alone having that genetic advantage over women being applicable to chess, is still being researched and debated - therefore, it is NOT factual, I have already brought a link for that up. You still hadn't answered some of my arguments.
And.....the rest of your post (I have it quoted) is just "closing" a case that YOU have lost, pal.
Good Game, 2-0, Ram v Cheater
Originally posted by gambit3Have you ever ran?
He runs 400 meters. The 100 meter sprinters are the kings of the track. They are the celebrated heros. As far as the 400 meters goes. Michael Johnson.
Are you an idiot?
The 400 is THE sprint, the 800 coming a close second. 100 and 200 runners revere the 4 runners. Not to discredit the 1 and the 2, but the 4 is the prime sprinting event. Everyone who actually runs knows it is the toughest race.
And seriously I was pointing a person out, at the top levels of sprints (800 down) probably 25% of runners are white. Hell, there is a olympian Chinese hurdler.
I have rarely seen more ignorance on all sides in a single debate.
The theory of evolution is a theory because that is a higher order of "truth"--if such a quasi-religious notion can even exist--in science. Facts are always subject to revision as better information replaces old notions; theories are the core ideas that succeed in accounting for known facts now, and predicting those yet to be discovered. With slight modifications, the theory of evolution has been doing this for more than a century. Like the theory of gravity, evolution is at the core of modern science. If anything in science is true, evolution is true.
cheater_1 confuses the lingo, but is far closer to accurately stating this basic point than his/her detractors.
On the other hand, cheater_1's process of deduction to explain chess skill compound the errors in his/her terminology. On these points, the detractors are closer to some semblance of reality even though they grossly misunderstand the foundation.
Originally posted by cheater1Oh, heavens! Mercy me! Say it aisn't so, Clem! He's not....MAD, is he? Ah do declare, ah think ah'm getting a right spell of the vapors!
Yes, yes, you all have succeeded--through your IGNORANCE--in getting me MAD!!! Bad things used to happen when I got mad. I got BANNED in forums, I got fined, I got thrown in jail. You see, I have NO patience for ignorance. I could never be a teacher because I would smack the students right across the face if they didnt understand the way I was explaining th ...[text shortened]... ill keep it open. I shall NOT respond to anyone unless they post something LEGITIMATE.
:swoon:
Alright
From what i've gathered the main point of RAMNED has boiled down to, cheater not citing information before, which he has no corrected, and that women just don't play the game as often.
ALSO, cheater has only tried to argue points that he can attempt to argue against, completely ignoring other statements that other people have said, be it simply because there is a lack of quoting from other sties since it is a simple matter of common sense, such as the matter of culture, as well as the fact that women simply don't spend as much time.
Of course, to be fair, I'm going to assume that cheater simply forgot about these topics and didn't mean to brush them aside as if they were nothing so let me reitterate them and hopefully we can call for the great debater to refute them so that his arguement is laid plain without any possible arguement against them
also note that though these arguements were originally other people's, in this post i've altered them a bit to suit what i think the arguement should follow.
1) The whole matter of evolution, or as you constantly repeat micro and/or macroevolution, is irrevelant because this is something outside of evolution. Assuming evolution is true, which i believe might i add (atheists FTW), the killing instinct which you have placed inside man has disappeared. from what i see, our instincts should change as time progresses, that is evolution, in order to suit our needs at the present time. we no longer need the killing instinct, thus by evolution we should've lost it, and even if you don't believe that, it is still true that this killing intent is somewhat wasted in the world of chess. if the game was changed so that we were using real people instead of plastic, then of course your statement that males basic instinct to kill is higher than that of a woman's etc etc, however, this is not real people. this is plastic. we are not afraid to do anything with this plastic since we know firstly, plastic has no feelings and secondly, even if it did, we are doing nothing more than moving it off the board.
2) The second point is that there are more males who play chess. now this alone is not a point, because as you state the best man still beats the best woman, however, this doesn't stop the fact that more males study and analyse the game. this is the key factor. because more males analyse the game, that means that there are more males who are more capable at the game. changing the scene, it is like saying that men are better then women at a certain activity, simply because they repeat the activitiy more and understand the activity. replace activity with chess.
also you haven't really explained why women are "genetically discriminated" in chess. unless of course that is simply a reference to your arguement that killing instinct comes into this (refer to above)
3) Now for this point, i would prefer to dedicate this simply to arguing your point that genetics is the reason why a person is good or bad at chess. i find this arguement completely untrue. hear me out. your point about atheletes is true, that is they are advantaged because their bodies have been built that way. chess however, is not as, a majority, an atheletic sport. it is a mental sport. and we know that mental capabilities are not simply passed down through genetics, in the same way that a genius may not give birth to a genius. this is where your logic is flawed. genetics mainly, and i say MAINLY, dictates the physical state that a person will be in and not the mental state. examples of this are things such as how an accountant's son or daughter may not be an accountant. it is a different mindframe and this different mindframe makes a difference in chess. going back to Ramned's arguement that a nervous player MAY lose to a weaker but confident player, that is a difference of mindframe and proof of this are shown in not only chess but also in other sports.
4) finally we come to the matter of culture. to be honest, the culture part is simple. we are best doing what we are used to doing. Black, pardon me if that's politically incorrect now but the term seems to have been used by you cheater, people are better at sprints because it's genetic. it's genetic because they have been doing it for a long time. just like woman have NOT been playing chess for a long time, it goes to say that by tradition, they will not be good at it, in comparison, whereas males who have been playing for centuries will be better, because of tradition.
I'm sorry if you read this and think it's a load of bs. i've done the best i can to satisfy my own curiosity since this is a bit of a strange topic and i am by your side when you say that others who simply refer to name-calling and the such have no real arguement. here is my arguement, or should i say the collection of arguements that i have gathered, and i hope that you take it into consideration and, for my sake, reply.
also note that i'm a yr 11 student so if my arguements are shallow then blame my lack of knowledge and inexperience in the real world 😛