Stonehenge

Author: sadolite

Posts

Total: 65
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,839
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Sooo Is Stonehenge some ancient and mysterious archaeological find or was it built in 1954 by the British army core of engineers.

Here is a video stating "FACTS" about Stonehenge  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTwuKCqFwJY&t=108s

Here is a video showing detailed photographs of Stonehenge being built in 1954  by the British Army core of engineers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEG5gFR0CZg&t=5s

I think Stonehenge is a giant archaeological hoax, what say you?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@sadolite
We should debate this.  THBT: STONEHENGE was BUILT in 1954.  I'll take CON.
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
Why the hell would someone build stonehenge and then claim it is an ancient find? 
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@oromagi
He is not interested in debating. He likes to sit around and complain about stuff.
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
is there a reason you capitalize various words within the resolution/debate, or is it just a style choice?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris
why isn't style choice a reason?
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
I suppose I mean a reason with utility
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris
style has utility.  name branding, for example
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
not in this context
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
anyway, I'm guessing that's your way of answering my question
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris
You don't think a recognizable writing style can have utility in this context?  I have argued that there should be style points in debate voting.   If nothing else, a distinct style helps people remember who they are reading.
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
You don't think a recognizable writing style can have utility in this context?
Sure. It CAN. Once you factor in the effort though, I think you would find a net benefit of 0.

"If nothing else, a distinct style helps people remember who they are reading."

i.e. None worth noting. Your name is already plastered in the debate page, the debate heading section and in the beginning/end of many opponent's arguments.

It really just boils down to: you like it. And that's perfectly fine. I do stylistic choices all the time for the sake of looking cool and stroking my ego. I think it is a stretch to say it serves any other purpose than that, much less advocate it for a points system in judging. 

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris
my original intent was to CAPITALIZE every defined TERM every time it appears, to remind readers that this is a term with a specified meaning which may require an adjustment in the reader's natural inclinations towards that term.  Unfortunately, I am not very consistent with usage and many CAPS comes off as shouty.  Mostly, I just keep playing with CAPS to see if such usage improves clarity or concision.  In this particular, I suppose I hoped a distinctive style might help to emphasize or visualize that debate topic
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
See, now that's different. If that is truly the case, you've put at least a loose amount of forethought into which words are capitalized and which are not, with an intended goal that provides some actual gain. Before you clarified, we were operating on the assumption that most words were capitalized at near-random for no clear purpose other than to identify who you were. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris

All right, I just thought this as an example of the utility of a distinctive style.

Here's a gimme debate that just finished


Obviously, my intent is humor and (you are free to correct me here) I think that my repetition of style adds to a sense of process or formality to my responses, which play into the humor.  What's funny is to see how a troll debate or a goof or whatever gets processed.  I think stuff like the overcaps and init's etc play up the humor here.

I don't think  many would argue that humor is not useful.
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
I mean, sure, humor has utility. I think I caused a rift in communication, sorry. To clarify, I've been talking mostly about serious, formal debates... and more specifically, the CAPITALIZATION habit within the context of one. I would agree that style, in general, is capable of having utility. 

I do stand by that it is undeserving of a voter category, though


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris
I do stand by that it is undeserving of a voter category, though

If we added style points, debates would get more interesting to read.
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@oromagi
Even if that were the case, I think it would mess up balancing.

At the moment, S&G, conduct, and sources can combine to override an arguments award. This is fair enough, but once you start adding more arbitrary point categories things would get unbalanced very quickly. Winning the debate arguments is more or less the main point of debating... I should imagine it would be harder to cancel out than "I liked sources and styles of this one more."

I also don't think there is an identifiable need. The S&G point is currently the de facto style point system. I know I, if not most, users account for ease of reading in my S&G decisions. If it is anything atrocious, I will dock points. 


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@MisterChris
I consider any conduct poor enough to merit a point poor enough to merit auto-loss.  Forfeiture mostly.

I'd get rid of spelling and conduct, keep grammar and add style
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@sadolite
I'm not digging them up at this time of night, but I'm sure there are records of Stonehenge existing before 1954.
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
One of the most famous landmarks in the United Kingdom, Stonehenge is regarded as a British cultural icon.[6] It has been a legally protected Scheduled Ancient Monument since 1882, when legislation to protect historic monuments was first successfully introduced in Britain. The site and its surroundings were added to UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites in 1986. Stonehenge is owned by the Crown and managed by English Heritage; the surrounding land is owned by the National Trust.[7][8]
Bruh


BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
The video is clearly from official sources when they were EXCAVATING IT. It's funny how you trust a random YouTube channel who can't even use grammar over official government sources. The video is clearly taken out of context.
Crocodile
Crocodile's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 1,156
3
4
10
Crocodile's avatar
Crocodile
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
get oofed by a bear
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@sadolite
@Crocodile
And a crocodile.

Seriously, why would someone build such a thing in 1954? For what purpose?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Seriously, why would someone build such a thing in 1954? For what purpose?

Piltdown Man.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
Wow, you really are buying into the government propaganda rather easily aren't you? I mean come on... 1950's? The place was built in the year 1972. Stop buying everything the man sells you, man.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@drafterman
That's awesome. I love how the picture is taken with a camera, which is fairly modern technology, and that it is of horse and cart with an ancient construction in the background. It's like looking backwards through time.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@drafterman
Are you libleft?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,839
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
LOL All I am doing is showing pictures of what appears to be Stonehenge being built in 1954. I am not buying into any govt conspiracy. The pictures are real as far as I have been able to research. No one is saying they are fake photo shopped photos. Pretty convincing evidence. No one has made an attempt to explain them away. But the usual personal attacks I can count on for sure. Are they fake photo's? If so what is the proof that they are? I personally would love to see the photos proven fake. Was Stonehenge moved from it's original location? That's a possibility.