chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

Big Pawn
Member since Dec-10-05
Some topics for debate:

1. God does not exist

2. Evolution is science

3. Atheists believe it rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life

4. Democracy favors liberalism

5. In America, only landowners should be allowed to vote.

6. It was better when women weren't allowed to vote.

7. God exists in time.

8. The moral argument:
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist 2. OMV exist
3. Therefore God exists.

9. Racism does not exist

10. America shouldn't have jails.

11. Is the constitution a "living" document?

12. Nobody is entitled to a living wage.

13. The government should be able to tell you how to spend your money.

14. You can't be saved without being baptized.

15. Forced integration is immoral.

Rules of Engagement at the Free Speech Zone (Non PC). UPDATED for 2021

Elite Posters engage in top-level debates. Bottom feeders do not. In this forum, you are either an Elite Poster or a Bottom Feeder.

***************

How To Be an Elite Poster

The Elite Posters will demonstrate by way of top-level debate exactly who they are. No need to name names. The Elite Posters recognize one another.

************

HOW TO LOSE A TOP-LEVEL DEBATE IN THE FREE SPEECH ZONE

If you fail to respond to a debate post at the top two levels of Grahams Hierarchy, then you forfeit the debate right there and then.

If any post during a debate fails to meet the top two levels of Graham's Hierarchy, then you forfeit the debate.

So if we include anything that is less than top level in our posts, it’s a loss.

*************
TOP TWO LEVELS OF GRAHAM'S HIERARCHY

Q: The top three levels are good quality responses according to Graham's Hierarchy. Why do the Elite Posters have to post only in the top two levels?

A: The second level requires you to <identify the mistake> and respond to it. This forces us to constantly be engaged with the <central points> and it makes the arguments more clear, since the mistake is being identified in every post. Further, this will cut down on the number of posts, thus reducing the "noise".

##########################

From Graham's Website - The Top Two Levels

Level DH6 (Top Level)

<DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.>

From Paul Graham's website. Now the next acceptable level of response.

<DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.>

##########################

ARE BOTTOM FEEDERS WELCOME IN THE FSZ?

Yes, you can debate at your level, of course, but you will get no respect.

##########################

WHAT EXACTLY IS A TROLL?

A troll is one who tries to derail a TOP-LEVEL debate by continuous interrupting.

A troll is someone who fails to respond to relevant question during a debate.

A troll is someone who posts but does not engage i.e. sh-t posting.

<Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement>

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...

SCOREBOARD

Here we will keep track of the debates won and lost, but only top-level debates. The name of the debate will be recorded, the start date and the result, plus the two participants.

>> Click here to see Big Pawn's game collections.

   Big Pawn has kibitzed 26870 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Aug-05-22 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
 
Big Pawn: < saffuna: <The post did not break one of the 7 Commandments...> You've been breaking the seventh guideline (The use of "sock puppet" accounts to ...create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited) for weeks. But <susan> had ...
 
   Aug-05-22 Susan Freeman chessforum (replies)
 
Big Pawn: This is your FREE SPEECH ZONE? Deleted for not breaking one of the Seven Commandments, but simply because an "admin" didn't like the comment? lols This is ridiculous. How are you going to allow such tyrannical censorship? <George Wallace: <Willber G: <petemcd85: Hello ...
 
   Jul-03-22 Big Pawn chessforum
 
Big Pawn: Back to the Bat Cave...
 
   Jul-02-22 chessgames.com chessforum (replies)
 
Big Pawn: <Get rid of this guy> That's impossible. I'm the diversity this site needs. Life is fair. Life is good.
 
   Apr-21-21 gezafan chessforum (replies)
 
Big Pawn: <Optimal Play>, anytime you want to discuss exactly why Catholicism is heresy, just meet me in the Free Speech Zone, but be prepared to have a high-level debate worthy of an Elite Poster. If you think you can handle it, emotionally.
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Free Speech Zone (Non PC)

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 237 OF 237 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-11-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I think we're in agreement, but to clarify for others, "the gospel was for____" means "to be preached to _____". If you don't agree, we'll have to back up a step.
Apr-12-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: The acid test comes when they test
HeMateMe next month.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsC...

Apr-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  gezafan: No matter how much proof you show a liberal they'll still deny everything.
Apr-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  gezafan: An interesting article.

https://www.takimag.com/article/the...

Apr-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Wow, what a read.
Apr-17-21  Big Pawn: < OhioChessFan: I think we're in agreement, but to clarify for others, "the gospel was for____" means "to be preached to _____". If you don't agree, we'll have to back up a step.>

Yes, it gospel of the Kingdom was for Israel and was to be preached only to Israel.

But, it is not the Christian gospel, the gospel of grace, which was given to the gentiles by Paul.

There are key differences.

The gospel of the Kingdom was a gospel under the law to the people of the law, Israel, while the gospel of grace is of course free of the law and was given to the gentile (people not of the law).

Apr-18-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <BP: Christ's gospel on earth did not include the resurrection and belief in it, as is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.>

Here's that passage:

<Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures>

I don't see any nexus between your claim and that passage.

<His gospel was for the Jew only. The Jews were to accept Him as their prophesied Messiah.>

His gospel was for the Jews only during his lifetime.

<That's not the gospel to the gentiles.>

When the apostles went to teach groups, did they have to take a show of hands to know which gospel to preach?

Apr-22-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  Willber G: This is like a correspondence debate between Ohio and Massachusetts using the Pony Express.
May-07-21  Big Pawn: White to play.


click for larger view

<OCF>, sorry for the delay in response. It sort of fell off my radar lately.

May-08-21  Big Pawn: <ohio: <That's not the gospel to the gentiles.>

When the apostles went to teach groups, did they have to take a show of hands to know which gospel to preach?>

This is the second time you asked this question and I'm not sure exactly what you are implying. Either way, this question of yours doesn't refute my point that <that's not the gospel to the gentiles.>

The gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus and the Disciples did not preach the Pauline gospel of grace, based as it is primarily on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, when they did not believe that Jesus would die or be resurrected.

Luke 18:31-34

The gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus and the Disciples was a gospel of the kingdom, as promised to the Jews. No death and resurrection. Still under the law.

The gospel preached by Paul was a gospel of grace, as promised to the gentiles. The death and resurrection is the central point. Not under the law.

This is why the disciples were to preach to the Jews and Paul was to preach to the Gentiles.

May-09-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <ohio: <That's not the gospel to the gentiles.> When the apostles went to teach groups, did they have to take a show of hands to know which gospel to preach?>

<BP: This is the second time you asked this question and I'm not sure exactly what you are implying. Either way, this question of yours doesn't refute my point that <that's not the gospel to the gentiles.>>

Doesn't really matter if you understand what I'm implying. Just answer the question. A witness being cross examined doesn't get to ask the implications of the questions being asked, nor do they get to decide the relevance.

May-18-21  Big Pawn: <ocf: A witness being cross examined doesn't get to ask the implications of the questions being asked, nor do they get to decide the relevance.>

I thought I was cross examining you on this statement.

You don't want to relate how this question of yours is relevant, and I'm going to assume at this point that it's because it's not relevant.

However, I will answer your question since you think the whole ball game is wrapped up in the answer.

No, I don't think the apostles took a show of hands to know which gospel to preach.

Now that I've answered this question, I call on you to show me what this has proved.

May-20-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <ocf: A witness being cross examined doesn't get to ask the implications of the questions being asked, nor do they get to decide the relevance.>

<BP: I thought I was cross examining you on this statement.>

I don't see it that way, but no big deal.

<You don't want to relate how this question of yours is relevant, and I'm going to assume at this point that it's because it's not relevant.>

I was building foundation.

<However, I will answer your question since you think the whole ball game is wrapped up in the answer.>

Assumes facts not in evidence.

<No, I don't think the apostles took a show of hands to know which gospel to preach.>

Thanks for answering "No", after a mere 40 days.

<Now that I've answered this question, I call on you to show me what this has proved.>

It allows me to proceed with this point. Using your position, the apostle Paul should have preached a different message to Jewish and Gentile groups, yet you're on record as saying that he didn't determine which of those groups he was preaching to.

If you want to affirm he didn't preach to Jewish groups, I'll make the Biblical case that he did.

I'll reiterate this issue of nexus that you didn't address in the last 40 days:

<BP: Christ's gospel on earth did not include the resurrection and belief in it, as is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.>

<OCF: Here's that passage:

<Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures>

I don't see any nexus between your claim and that passage.>

May-30-21  Big Pawn: <It allows me to proceed with this point. Using your position, the apostle Paul should have preached a different message to Jewish and Gentile groups, yet you're on record as saying that he didn't determine which of those groups he was preaching to.>

I will now show you how your point is refuted and irrelevant, both. Then I will turn this point around on you, reverse the position and ask you to answer for it.

1. I did not say that Paul didn't determine which of these groups he was addressing. I said he didn't take a hand count.

2. Even if I didn't have the first point on my side, and it is, this would still be an irrelevant point as I'll illustrate. There are two issues here, that you've conflated.

A. The issue of whether Paul is <able to do> something, which is to discern his audience.

B. The issue of <what he was supposed to do>, regardless of whether he can do it or not.

Now the turnaround, which will illustrate the fallacy of your point.

Jesus told his disciples to preach to the Jew and not the Gentile.

Let's apply <ohio> logic to it.

ohio: did the disciples take a hand count before preaching?

bp: no

ohio: then they weren't told to preach to the Jew

Do you now see that your point was irrelevant? If not, we will sit right here, put this debate on pause, and I will ask you about whether or not the disciples had to take a count of hands before preaching, to make sure they weren't preaching to Gentiles, and then we'll talk about Jesus's directive to them <not> to preach to the Gentiles.

You think you had a clever point but it turns out to be both irrelevant and incorrect, and I knew this from the start. So this was a waste of time. Hence, I waited a long time to answer this point, so that I could waste your time too.

<Ohio>, I would like to have this discussion with you as I think you are a true blue Christian, but I don't want to waste time with obvious fallacies and red herrings. Maybe they're not obvious to you, but they're obvious to me. So if I ask why a thing is relevant, don't bark at me and say none of your business, just answer the question. Chances are I realize that you're going nowhere and I want to redirect you back to the topic.

I want <you> to put forth your <best> argument for your position. I don't want a weak argument so I can say I won this debate. This debate is not about a score. It's about the gospel, salvation and truth. This is far too important to waste time with.

So Paul was to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles and the Disciples were to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews.

Two different gospels. Gospel of Grace, Gospel of the Kingdom. Two different people groups: The Jew, The Gentile.

Your objection was that Paul wasn't told to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles <because> he didn't take a hand count.

Now that that's out of the way...or is it?

Jun-03-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <OCF: It allows me to proceed with this point. Using your position, the apostle Paul should have preached a different message to Jewish and Gentile groups, yet you're on record as saying that he didn't determine which of those groups he was preaching to.>

<BP: I will now show you how your point is refuted and irrelevant, both. Then I will turn this point around on you, reverse the position and ask you to answer for it.

1. I did not say that Paul didn't determine which of these groups he was addressing. I said he didn't take a hand count.>

<Eye roll>

<2. Even if I didn't have the first point on my side, and it is, this would still be an irrelevant point as I'll illustrate. There are two issues here, that you've conflated.

A. The issue of whether Paul is <able to do> something, which is to discern his audience.

B. The issue of <what he was supposed to do>, regardless of whether he can do it or not.>

Whew, get off the sophistry already.

<Now the turnaround, which will illustrate the fallacy of your point.

Jesus told his disciples to preach to the Jew and not the Gentile.

Let's apply <ohio> logic to it.

ohio: did the disciples take a hand count before preaching?

bp: no

ohio: then they weren't told to preach to the Jew>

They only taught in Israel. They were told to only teach to Jews. Paul taught all over the world. Both in Israel, and in Gentile nations. Paul was told to preach to both Jew and Gentile. He did so. You stand refuted.

<Do you now see that your point was irrelevant? If not, we will sit right here, put this debate on pause, and I will ask you about whether or not the disciples had to take a count of hands before preaching, to make sure they weren't preaching to Gentiles, and then we'll talk about Jesus's directive to them <not> to preach to the Gentiles.>

They didn't have to take a hand count in Israel.

<You think you had a clever point but it turns out to be both irrelevant and incorrect, and I knew this from the start. So this was a waste of time. Hence, I waited a long time to answer this point, so that I could waste your time too.

<Ohio>, I would like to have this discussion with you as I think you are a true blue Christian, but I don't want to waste time with obvious fallacies and red herrings. Maybe they're not obvious to you, but they're obvious to me. So if I ask why a thing is relevant, don't bark at me and say none of your business, just answer the question. Chances are I realize that you're going nowhere and I want to redirect you back to the topic.

I want <you> to put forth your <best> argument for your position. I don't want a weak argument so I can say I won this debate. This debate is not about a score. It's about the gospel, salvation and truth. This is far too important to waste time with.>

<So Paul was to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles and the Disciples were to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews.>

Again, repeating the claim doesn't make it true.

<Two different gospels. Gospel of Grace, Gospel of the Kingdom. Two different people groups: The Jew, The Gentile.>

Paul taught the gospel to <both> Jews and Gentiles. That is the point you are missing. By <your> reckoning, Paul had to have 2 gospels ready to preach to the 2 different audiences.

Acts 9:11, 15 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth....But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

<Your objection was that Paul wasn't told to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles <because> he didn't take a hand count.

Now that that's out of the way...or is it?>

No, it's not. The apostles were told to go only to Jews. Paul was told to go to both Gentiles and Jews.

Oct-25-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  gezafan: Big Pawn hasn't posted for awhile. I hope he's alright...
Nov-01-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  fredthebear: Perhaps George Wallace knows what happened to Big Pawn.
Jun-10-22  Caissanist: Since <Big Pawn> has moved on from this site, and perhaps this earth, I thought I'd commemorate him with a useful chunk of chess advice he posted a couple of years ago, for however long this forum remains. I still read books a lot myself, but perhaps I would be a better player if I followed his advice more:

<I've read a lot of chess books, especially when I was in my twenties, and to some degree, they helped me get better. I played a lot of chess against my tabletop Novag Diamond, which was just about 2200 level in standard time controls. I played it every day one or two games for a year and a half before I won my first game. But now we live in a new age! I think we can learn a lot more about chess from a few videos where the masters, or even IMs, GMs, or the world champ himself (!) provide live commentary as they play. That provides the kind of insight into high-level chess thinking that books struggle to get across.

I love <Kingscrusher's> channel because of the way he explains the games. I think Kramnik said that although he can't prove it, he somehow feels it's important, valuable, maybe even necessary for improvement, to be very familiar with the whole history of chess and study games from the best players of each respective era.

With that in mind, <Kingscrusher's> playlist on The Evolution of Chess Theory is perfect! He goes way back to the times of Greco and then Staunton, on to Morphy and then Steinitz, moving forward to the Lasker era and so forth.

I went through the different eras once and tried to emulate the style of play typical for each era in my blitz games. I would play thousands of games just trying to play like Morphy by focusing on quick development and increasing piece activity at all times, with an eye out of tactics. (Supplemented with tactics puzzles).

Then I got into the Steinitz era and that was so interesting, watching him change from a typical 1800s romantic style to the new position style. I then switched my style of play in blitz to Steinitz and resisted my old urges to sac and attack speculatively, focusing on the center, the bishops, and solid play.

My blitz rating went from about 1850-1950 to 2295 (the other day).

One downside about great books is that they are so great, make such a profound impression, and inspire you to try out what you learned, that it can make your thinking inflexible and dogmatic. That happened to me. I broke free from that by experimenting with uncomfortable moves in certain kinds of positions in my blitz games. In my case, for example, I started taking on IQP positions and working with the piece activity. I also started recapturing with a pawn in the kind of position where I would normally have dogmatically captured with a piece, say, to plunk the piece in a <hole> on e5.>

Jun-29-22  Keyser Soze: Hi there!

New Rogoff?

Jun-29-22  Big Pawn: <Keyser Soze: Hi there!

New Rogoff?>

I might have to. <Stonehenge> has suspended <George Wallace> (of course, I received an email from GW...) for 168 hours for violating guideline #1, while that guideline is routinely broken by other posters all the time.

So what we have here again is political censorship.

And that was after he <accidentally> deleted the rogoff page...

It was an accident he says. "Oops! Did I do that?"

Jun-29-22  Z free or die: <<Caissanist> Since <Big Pawn> has moved on from this site, and perhaps this earth, ...>

Oh, we should be so lucky.

Jun-29-22  Keyser Soze: Might be a progressist flok him. We have personal forums, out of his reach.

Meanwhile, Biden doing poopoo

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...

Jun-30-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  Check It Out: <Big Pawn: I might have to [start a Free Speech zone]. <Stonehenge> has suspended <George Wallace>

 (of course, I <received an email from GW…)>>

A “progressive liberal”; a “mentally ill” enemy; but oh, they’ve exchanged emails.

There’s your tell.

chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #38358)

Jun-30-22  Big Pawn: <CIO: A “progressive liberal”; a “mentally ill” enemy; but oh, they’ve exchanged emails.

There’s your tell. >

I advise you to read <George Wallace's> profile.

He's the only <honest> progressive liberal out there.

Jul-03-22  Big Pawn: Back to the Bat Cave...
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 237)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 237 OF 237 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
   
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC