The Argument thread.

[Anthony Wells]

for the mods: If you feel this belongs in a different part of the forum then please move it.



Disclaimer: I know there is at least one other thread like this but that one is dead in the water from five months ago.





Now on to the action. I'm making this thread for you to Argue with me. It doesn't matter the topic or how silly the argument is. Give me your points and I will argue against them. Only one rule I impose: don't take this too seriously. its just a silly thread and a silly game I wanna play. I'm going to try and see if I can out argue the members of the escapist.

Ready
Set
ARGUE with me!

 

[NerfedFalcon]

There is no way that Master Chief will ever beat Commander Shepard (assuming Soldier class) in a one-on-one firefight.

Spoiler: Captcha:

Describe H&M, a brand I don't have in this country. Description: "They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God." ...What? I don't GET very many advertisement Captchas any more, mostly the Comic Sans ones!

 

[Anthony Wells]

There is no way that Master Chief will ever beat Commander Shepard (assuming Soldier class) in a one-on-one firefight.

I disagree. While Commander Shepherd has a vast arsenal of weapons at his/her disposal Master Chief has uncanny luck at picking up weapons at just the right moment he needs them to beat the ensuing fight. I believe the ensuing fight would be a closely knit match-up but master chief has the advantage as he has grenades that he could lob behind shepherds cover while at the same time running from point to point to dodge shepherds fire. and because Shepherd relies on cover based combat more than the chief its safe to assume if the chief could keep shepherd out of cover Shepherd wouldn't last long.

 

[The Night Angel]

You will never lose this argument with me.

[sub]see what I did there??[/sub]

 

[Anthony Wells]

You will never lose this argument with me.

[sub]see what I did there??[/sub]

um...true... .I'll go true. Hmm that was Easy.

 

[The Night Angel]

You will never lose this argument with me.

[sub]see what I did there??[/sub]

um...true... .I'll go true. Hmm that was Easy.

You sir have lied to me!!! :O You promised an argument, but you just agreed with me, I demand a refund of one million internets..... and a cookie

 

[Anthony Wells]

You will never lose this argument with me.

[sub]see what I did there??[/sub]

um...true... .I'll go true. Hmm that was Easy.

You sir have lied to me!!! :O You promised an argument, but you just agreed with me, I demand a refund of one million internets..... and a cookie

You presented me with a paradox. not a true argument. as such there was nothing i could argue against successfully and as a result the only thing i could do was agree with you on your statement. But now you HAVE presented me with something to argue against. I promised an argument if you gave me some points and something to argue against. and thus i am now arguing that you are wrong to assume i promised you an argument against a paradox. As i have not yet lied i do not owe you a cookie nor the million Internets.

 

[The Night Angel]

I still gave a statement, it was possible to argue against it, the fact that you didn't have fine print stating paradoxes were banned means that I made a valid point, and you had no counter argument. But I don't mind, I don't need the internets, and I have cookies already.

 

[Anthony Wells]

I still gave a statement, it was possible to argue against it, the fact that you didn't have fine print stating paradoxes were banned means that I made a valid point, and you had no counter argument. But I don't mind, I don't need the internets, and I have cookies already.

I am not banning Paradox's. but it impossible to argue against them as i will only be fulfilling something and making me wrong in the argument no matter what. So i just concede defeat to you. so i guess yes i do owe you the stuff as you defeated me. But for the sake of the argument I decide to argue against your other point. (poorly i might add) So if its any consolation: http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/732/winternet.jpg

 

[The Night Angel]

Yayy, my very own internet!!! I still think this is a good thread, and as you have been gracious in defeat, I will give you another point to argue against.

Batman is a cooler hero than Green Arrow.

 

[Trent Lynch]

Trying arguing against this:

All sites should remove their minimum requirements for passwords.
My points:
1) requiring the use of password of length less than x and greater than a, requiring at least 3 different character types, limits the user to a set number of possible passwords which will take a computer less than a month to correctly guess, starting with the first possible password and checking all other combinations. Where allowing any number of character up to x gives an increased number of potential guesses and removing the 3 different character type minimum increases the number of combinations per string length.
2) making a password like "P@$$woRD", requires you either write it down or reuse it often to remember it. Otherwise one risks the chance of having to guess between the 1296 combinations of characters that make up the word "password"
3) assuming you don't write down your password, or do and decided to do this anyway. minimum requirement passwords promote the idea of repeat using the same hard to remember password to make remembering it easier, therefore once someone guesses the password for one site or program, they have a working password for all your sites and programs.

My solution:
Remove minimum requirements on passwords, allow all characters available in the extended ASCII code to be used, and set a standard maximum password length of 30 characters.
This will give (assuming the extra space in the 30 character length string is filled by spaces)
1.5711057317133127155119134449488x10^72 possible combinations (255^30) if a computer could guess at a rate of 1000 guesses a second, that would take a computer 5.051137254736730695447252587927x10^61 years to guess (assuming all characters are the 255 character, average would be half this at best but you get the idea.)

 

[Anthony Wells]

Yayy, my very own internet!!! I still think this is a good thread, and as you have been gracious in defeat, I will give you another point to argue against.

Batman is a cooler hero than Green Arrow.

not making this easy are you... batman is one of few superheroes I like and despite the awful things i might or might not say in the coming sentences i stand by that point.



Well lets start off by comparing them: billionaires? check. Crime fighters? check. Weird gadgets out of a certain theme? Check. OK so they are a lot alike. But Green Arrow has a blonde mustache. and dresses like robin hood. a guy in a bat costume thats angsty over his parents death has no match for a man in a robin hood outfit using arrows as his main form of weaponry.

 

[Anthony Wells]

Trying arguing against this:

All sites should remove their minimum requirements for passwords.
My points:
1) requiring the use of password of length less than x and greater than a, requiring at least 3 different character types, limits the user to a set number of possible passwords which will take a computer less than a month to correctly guess, starting with the first possible password and checking all other combinations. Where allowing any number of character up to x gives an increased number of potential guesses and removing the 3 different character type minimum increases the number of combinations per string length.
2) making a password like "P@$$woRD", requires you either write it down or reuse it often to remember it. Otherwise one risks the chance of having to guess between the 1296 combinations of characters that make up the word "password"
3) assuming you don't write down your password, or do and decided to do this anyway. minimum requirement passwords promote the idea of repeat using the same hard to remember password to make remembering it easier, therefore once someone guesses the password for one site or program, they have a working password for all your sites and programs.

My solution:
Remove minimum requirements on passwords, allow all characters available in the extended ASCII code to be used, and set a standard maximum password length of 30 characters.
This will give (assuming the extra space in the 30 character length string is filled by spaces)
1.5711057317133127155119134449488x10^72 possible combinations (255^30) if a computer could guess at a rate of 1000 guesses a second, that would take a computer 5.051137254736730695447252587927x10^61 years to guess (assuming all characters are the 255 character, average would be half this at best but you get the idea.)

You make very fair points there but what some people fail to realize is that noone is going to use overly complicated passwords even if they can. Theoretically that solution could work but practically it just doesnt make as much sense. Even within constrained character limits most sites dont have a cap on the maximum amount of letters you can have in a password. but limiting it to a minimum amount allows a better chance of safety then leaving only one letter or number. Back to my point earlier is that even if someone used an overly complicated password if they forget they are done. if they write it down they can still get hacked and be hacked anyways. if its stolen out of their purse or pockets they can be hacked. or if it drops and they dont notice it. As theoretically sound your solution is Practically its not as useful nor is it as practical. (redundant statement is redundant i believe)

 

[The Night Angel]

not making this easy are you... batman is one of few superheroes I like and despite the awful things i might or might not say in the coming sentences i stand by that point.



Well lets start off by comparing them: billionaires? check. Crime fighters? check. Weird gadgets out of a certain theme? Check. OK so they are a lot alike. But Green Arrow has a blonde mustache. and dresses like robin hood. a guy in a bat costume thats angsty over his parents death has no match for a man in a robin hood outfit using arrows as his main form of weaponry.

Where would the fun in an easy argument be??

Well, I'd like to point out that a blonde moustache is really more of a negative, as the only people who have them are cheesy action heroes and pro-wrestlers like Hulk Hogan

Now, as for the dressing up like Robin Hood, what sort of identity crisis is that hero having that he has to steal from a fictional character to try to be cool??? I mean, can't he make a name for himself without stealing someone else's fame? Also, you know who else wears green tights???..... Robin. I rest my case

 

[Anthony Wells]

not making this easy are you... batman is one of few superheroes I like and despite the awful things i might or might not say in the coming sentences i stand by that point.



Well lets start off by comparing them: billionaires? check. Crime fighters? check. Weird gadgets out of a certain theme? Check. OK so they are a lot alike. But Green Arrow has a blonde mustache. and dresses like robin hood. a guy in a bat costume thats angsty over his parents death has no match for a man in a robin hood outfit using arrows as his main form of weaponry.

Where would the fun in an easy argument be??

Well, I'd like to point out that a blonde moustache is really more of a negative, as the only people who have them are cheesy action heroes and pro-wrestlers like Hulk Hogan

Now, as for the dressing up like Robin Hood, what sort of identity crisis is that hero having that he has to steal from a fictional character to try to be cool??? I mean, can't he make a name for himself without stealing someone else's fame? Also, you know who else wears green tights???..... Robin. I rest my case

...Ok....you have soundly defeated me again...I cant come up with proper arguments considering Green Arrows whole reason for existing (a counterpoint to batman) and i was never a big comic fan so I dont know all that much about him and even through research I havent been able to find out enough. I presented the best argument i could come up with given my limited knowledge of the character and you picked it apart and so i must now give you a reward. and here you go: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2000035887522228730_rs.jpg

 

[The Night Angel]

...Ok....you have soundly defeated me again...I cant come up with proper arguments considering Green Arrows whole reason for existing (a counterpoint to batman) and i was never a big comic fan so I dont know all that much about him and even through research I havent been able to find out enough. I presented the best argument i could come up with given my limited knowledge of the character and you picked it apart and so i must now give you a reward. and here you go: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2000035887522228730_rs.jpg

Haha, that reward gave me a great laugh. To be honest my knowledge of him wouldn't be much better than yours. Now, if I'm not completely monopolising the thread, I will give you another

Basketball is a better sport than football(soccer).

 

[Anthony Wells]

...Ok....you have soundly defeated me again...I cant come up with proper arguments considering Green Arrows whole reason for existing (a counterpoint to batman) and i was never a big comic fan so I dont know all that much about him and even through research I havent been able to find out enough. I presented the best argument i could come up with given my limited knowledge of the character and you picked it apart and so i must now give you a reward. and here you go: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2000035887522228730_rs.jpg

Haha, that reward gave me a great laugh. To be honest my knowledge of him wouldn't be much better than yours. Now, if I'm not completely monopolising the thread, I will give you another

Basketball is a better sport than football(soccer).

better having you monopolize the thread than noone post at all.



Football/Soccer is a much better sport because its far easier to comprehend whats happening and how score is calculated. Basketball has three different scoring zones. In Football/Soccer you get the ball in the net you get one point. you get the ball in the net in basketball you get either 1, 2, or 3 points much more convoluted and confusing than Soccer/Football. There is a lot a lot less noise in Soccer/Football vs in basketball and so would be better to watch if you have a headache or are sensitive to loud noise.

 

[The Night Angel]

better having you monopolize the thread than noone post at all.



Football/Soccer is a much better sport because its far easier to comprehend whats happening and how score is calculated. Basketball has three different scoring zones. In Football/Soccer you get the ball in the net you get one point. you get the ball in the net in basketball you get either 1, 2, or 3 points much more convoluted and confusing than Soccer/Football. There is a lot a lot less noise in Soccer/Football vs in basketball and so would be better to watch if you have a headache or are sensitive to loud noise.

But in football, you have to argue that watching 90 minutes of it is worth the hassle when on a great many occasions it will end in a draw, often a scoreless one at that. Basketball is a faster game with many more possessions, and a guaranteed win for one team or the other. Better to have one set of fans happy and one disappointed, than have both sets of fans, and players, disappointed. Also, in basketball, there is more opportunity for players who wouldn't be considered 'stars' to shine. In fact, on many occasions, it is the bench that decides the game for a team.

 

[Trent Lynch]

Trying arguing against this:

All sites should remove their minimum requirements for passwords.
My points:
1) requiring the use of password of length less than x and greater than a, requiring at least 3 different character types, limits the user to a set number of possible passwords which will take a computer less than a month to correctly guess, starting with the first possible password and checking all other combinations. Where allowing any number of character up to x gives an increased number of potential guesses and removing the 3 different character type minimum increases the number of combinations per string length.
2) making a password like "P@$$woRD", requires you either write it down or reuse it often to remember it. Otherwise one risks the chance of having to guess between the 1296 combinations of characters that make up the word "password"
3) assuming you don't write down your password, or do and decided to do this anyway. minimum requirement passwords promote the idea of repeat using the same hard to remember password to make remembering it easier, therefore once someone guesses the password for one site or program, they have a working password for all your sites and programs.

My solution:
Remove minimum requirements on passwords, allow all characters available in the extended ASCII code to be used, and set a standard maximum password length of 30 characters.
This will give (assuming the extra space in the 30 character length string is filled by spaces)
1.5711057317133127155119134449488x10^72 possible combinations (255^30) if a computer could guess at a rate of 1000 guesses a second, that would take a computer 5.051137254736730695447252587927x10^61 years to guess (assuming all characters are the 255 character, average would be half this at best but you get the idea.)

You make very fair points there but what some people fail to realize is that noone is going to use overly complicated passwords even if they can. Theoretically that solution could work but practically it just doesnt make as much sense. Even within constrained character limits most sites dont have a cap on the maximum amount of letters you can have in a password. but limiting it to a minimum amount allows a better chance of safety then leaving only one letter or number. Back to my point earlier is that even if someone used an overly complicated password if they forget they are done. if they write it down they can still get hacked and be hacked anyways. if its stolen out of their purse or pockets they can be hacked. or if it drops and they dont notice it. As theoretically sound your solution is Practically its not as useful nor is it as practical. (redundant statement is redundant i believe)

You seem to have lost my message in it's length. As my solution was simply to allow a larger number of possibilities, not to make them more complicated. As stated above, a computer would take so long to guess the password of "password" that the dinosaurs could have evolved faster. The word password is one of the most commonly used passwords in the world, that's why this is a very secure way of dealing with passwords. Also most hackers target at random so they would use computer searches and guesses to maximize efficiency. So if your virus protection, scanner, and firewall are all up to date your biggest concern is a computer randomly guessing as fast as it can.

 

[Jonluw]

Is this the right room for an argument?