gdp's Comments

DEBATEitOUT.com : Will the U.S. swim team still conquer after Michael Phelps?

Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:08:47 +0000

China is mostly winning medals on the women's side and even then are competitive mostly in longer swims than the US. There are fewer of those than the "sprinting" style events that the US dominates. US medal count includes more gold medals in swimming alone than all of China's swim medals combined. They are still a 3 to 1 advantage in total medals as a result. If you consider that evidence that China is catching up, I do not. Most of their actual catchup was in the 1990s, when it was discovered that most of their swimmers were doping and were banned. I don't think that bodes well moving forward. Diving, yes. They're winning there (already). Swimming no.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Will the U.S. swim team still conquer after Michael Phelps?

Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:10:02 +0000

If true that would probably have more to do with Olympic rules limiting the number of participants per country in swimming finals than with "no Phelps". US has over 3 times as many swimming medals as any other country historically (Australia is #2 and they are 300 medals behind). So I'd say they will still be far better than most other countries for a long time yet as there's no evidence of anyone catching up.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Is Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time?

Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:38:11 +0000

If it is totally useless to you, why would you have an opinion in the first place? Better still, why would it be worth listening to or reading it? It is unlikely to be an informed and useful thought if you don't care about the subject in the first place. Generally speaking, if you don't know anything, and don't care to, why say anything at all?

DEBATEitOUT.com : Should immigrant business owners receive tax breaks?

Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:36:01 +0000

So this would mean that they would only receive tax breaks on home offices, business use of automobile, capital depreciation, business supplies, additional expenses for insurance premiums, retirement contributions, office software, travel, and office furniture. Seems fair to me. My understanding of the "special" tax credits available is that they mostly apply to investors, not the business owners themselves, and that they're targeting neighbourhoods (largely minority dominated urban areas) rather than immigrants. What actual or proposed special tax advantages could be applied specifically to immigrants or women?

DEBATEitOUT.com : Is Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time?

Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:40:11 +0000

Wilt "wilted" typically under pressure in the same way LeBron seems to today. Putting up great numbers against mediocre players isn't all that impressive per se versus putting up great performances against the top echelon, especially when it matters most. Wilt barely would make the top 5 all-time as a result. And that would be mostly because they kept changing the rules because he was doing all sorts of unprecedented things (like chasing down his own missed free-throws as alley-oops to himself leading to the lane violation). If you were going to pick someone from that era, Bill Russell would be acceptable. There's at least an argument for him surpassing Jordan in a way that almost nobody takes Wilt seriously. Kareem even has a case that Wilt doesn't.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Is Floyd Mayweather, Jr. the greatest boxer of all-time?

Wed, 30 May 2012 13:16:56 +0000

He also lost twice each to Tony Zale (both KOs) and Harold Green AND Steve Riggio well before Sugar Ray came along. That's a lot of losses to contend with during what should be a boxing prime. Given that I didn't mention Ali, I'm not sure what pertinence that has to reply with. Yes boxers eventually lose, but they don't lose as often as Graziano did during his prime, nor do they get KO'd very often. Hence the problem with this theory considering him among all-time greats. You may as well have said "Mike Tyson" here and it would make about as much sense. Principally, the issue at hand is that you are favoring someone without any logical backing or peer assessments that would find it a sensible choice (eg, even people of your generation would probably look at you like you were crazy for saying this). I would like to know why. Did you meet him once? Did you like the movie? See one of his fights as a child? What exactly happens here that makes this guy stand out. Because otherwise, he's certainly a good fighter, and good puncher, but not a great boxer on the Mayweather/Ali/Robinson level and it makes no sense to declare otherwise.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Is Floyd Mayweather, Jr. the greatest boxer of all-time?

Tue, 15 May 2012 18:15:45 +0000

Sugar Ray Robinson did knock him out. Just FYI. Given that the usual answer to this question by people who actually followed boxing is Sugar Ray Robinson, it seems pertinent to note that. As a further problem with that pick, Graz isn't typically listed in anybody's top 50 list of all-time boxers. If he jumps at least 50 or more other boxers in your mind, then it's probably much like your "Willie McCovey" answer (a similar problem, given that Stretch would have to jump about the same number of baseball players).

DEBATEitOUT.com : Should lie detector tests really be used in the court of law?

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:25:45 +0000

Why is it that you don't even bother to refute anything? From anyone (much less me)?

DEBATEitOUT.com : Will crowdfunding be the next big thing?

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:23:57 +0000

It's pretty much what buying stock has always been (large body of people pooling money and assets together), it's just occurring in a different venue for raising capital and often providing products or services as an end point rather than dividends and capital gains in the form of money. I would think the track record of the stock market would be the obvious place to look to see if it is a smart thing or not. I'd say, more or less, yes. Though it's possible there are greater risks for throwing money into a kickstarter or other microloaning structure, it's also possible that you will have more direct "insider" knowledge if it is a friend or a friend's recommendation as to a given project's likely prospects.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Should lie detector tests really be used in the court of law?

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:40:31 +0000

Cops themselves aren't necessarily a good determination of lying either. For example, perhaps we may grant they can tell someone is lying, but what about, does that have any bearing on a case or potential crime? Their "feel" for the relative honesty of a story should be based upon gathering other evidence than their mere impression of the person and isn't any more useful in a court for that reason (along with that they are not experts in determining accurately the form and function of deception any more than almost any other person is with awareness of basic psychology). In addition, this then relies on the officer's credibility itself being always held above reproach. There are numerous cases of corruption and other sources of dishonesty within the blue line to suggest that simply because it's a cops opinion doesn't make it very useful (eg, if it comes down to the cops word versus the other party, that's not "evidence" in any sensible view without any corroboration). Not only would this require an assessment of each individual cops ability to discern accurate lies and deception, but it would require an assessment of these individuals' relative honesty on their own accord. Even "honest" lying in the form of expressing more strongly a belief in guilt which is otherwise unfounded would be false.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Should lie detector tests really be used in the court of law?

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:36:53 +0000

fMRI scans shouldn't either.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Does luck have a lot to do with success?

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:39:35 +0000

http://www.debateitout.com/does-luck-contribute-a... Seriously. Why is this so interesting that it needs to come up every few months to reopen as a discussion?

DEBATEitOUT.com : Will Mitt Romney be a good fight against Barack Obama?

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:28:34 +0000

What's his reach? I get the impression they're about the same height and weight class. So reach probably matters. Also what kind of fight are we talking? MMA? Boxing?

DEBATEitOUT.com : Is the iPhone a dying product?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:08:38 +0000

Counterpoints: 1) Text messages can take less time to compose and send than waiting for someone to answer the phone and speak and can be read/responded to at the leisure of both parties rather than imposing the immediacy and attention of a phone call. 2) For communicating basic information (I'm here, etc), it's more efficient to text than to have to rely on a back and forth conversation ala telephone 3) In some social settings, talking may be frowned upon or annoying (movie theater, airplane) where texting can be done quietly and with greater privacy. 4) Conversations still occur in face to face settings. Where they are preferred and useful for people of all generations. Rather than wasting time talking to people who aren't physically there. Granted there are many people who waste time texting to people who are not there, but they waste far less attention than phone calls to do so. There are scenarios where a phone call is still superior to text messages or gchat windows or what have you (long back and forth dialogues with non-present persons, particularly with emotional content involved or very expressive speakers), but to suggest that the reason is that people don't want to actually talk to and listen to each other is a hilarious misreading of the technology. And the generation that has adopted it. I find your views more an ageist remark than an understanding one.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Does luck contribute a lot to success?

Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:00:47 +0000

None of those anecdotes are suggestive of luck. 1) Being a minority and getting pulled over more commonly is due to structural biases in policing strategies and, to some degree, personal prejudices of officers. Both of those are deliberate effects. 2) Modern definitions of success do not generally rely upon individual's ability to fix or build things with hammers or nails or carrying heavy objects. A "lazy" person who does not do these things can still be quite diligent in some other manner, or possibly possesses managerial traits that you or others do not, or is better known to higher authorities within an agency and benefit from structural networking. 3) Living somewhere with high crime rates involves elements of random chance as to which properties might be violated by criminal activity, but what gets stolen is usually predictable and systematic. A guitar gets stolen because it's easier to fence and possesses some value. Security cameras being off might also have been a deliberate event (either by planning theft to disable it or the theft occurring because the camera was known to be not working at the time). A driver runs into a car parked on the street... because the car is parked on the street and there's some additional risk of car accidents when such things happen. 4) Bees are pretty systematic about their operations and select nesting locations deliberately. While there can be some arbitrary decision making based on unique preferences, it's not like they just flipped a coin and said "here". And whether or not someone upkeeps a home to prevent or fight back against a beehive infestation is obviously not luck but rather is an active choice and an output of work. 5) A raffle is random chance. We ascribe "luck" to the winners of such events, but they are simply probability events, and they possessed no lucky attributes which allowed them to win when you did not. (it's possible a raffle/lottery is rigged or otherwise biased in some way, but this would not strengthen the luck argument to note either)

DEBATEitOUT.com : Does luck contribute a lot to success?

Sat, 7 Apr 2012 18:13:36 +0000

Did I at all suggest that luck had a major part to do with it? No. Go back and re-read what I wrote. What I took issue with is that you picked an example that wasn't actually someone successful and whose "success" was a larger product of other things not under his control than is appropriate for pushing for the meritocratic worldview. There were better and more accessible people who you could have picked for this. Eg, someone who was actually successful at playing quarterback. I would say that a core portion of my rebuttal was the argument that very few people achieve any measure of success without support and connection from human networks around them. This also is not an argument for "luck". It was instead an argument that success is not merely dependent on individual abilities. Indeed, it would be questionable to consider someone like Tebow as successful because he generally lacks many relevant individual abilities under the argument you were making. I will also not bother to rebut your confused lottery example. It's rather clear you suffer some sort of reading comprehension problems and it doesn't bear any weight on either of our arguments.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Will flying cars be part of our future?

Sat, 7 Apr 2012 18:11:31 +0000

When robotic control systems are better sure. I doubt we want large numbers of human beings that already have trouble controlling vehicles safely at 2D levels trying to operate on a 3D scale. Given the amount of training and regulation that already goes into piloting aircraft safely and the amount of computer assisted avionics already in place. I don't think that this is far off however. Mostly requires removing regulations preventing robotic, driverless controls from heavier road tests.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Does luck contribute a lot to success?

Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:30:40 +0000

Tim Tebow hasn't acquired skills directly related to playing the position of quarterback. He has possession and development of other skills which are related to playing football or to being in a leadership position within a tightly formed organisation like a football team. But if he has any actual football skills relating to the specific position he currently plays, I haven't seen many and more than likely neither did the Broncos. Even most of his actual fans that I know acknowledge that his success was dependent on less quantified aspects of his performance than things like his terrible accuracy and lack of throwing ability. You're also disregarding other aspects in football success, such as the performance of other players (generally speaking quarterbacks get way too much credit and blame for team performance, almost as much of an excess as their coaches do). Like the Denver defense or overall running game. Or especially scheduling fortune/misfortune: Denver didn't play very many good teams, mostly played them at home, played Chicago when their quarterback was hurt, and still barely won, and was utterly crushed by the two reasonably good offenses they played, New England twice and Detroit. The NFL does this somewhat deliberately (Denver wasn't very good the year before and so received a somewhat easier schedule) for marketing and competitive reasons, so it's not "luck". I make a similar argument for the media fury that surrounded Jeremy Lin. The Knicks had a very easy schedule of mediocre opposition and mostly home games, then hit a wall when they had a much harder schedule of more road games and better opposition. The Broncos followed a similar path. As a further problem, good successful quarterbacks should be counted on to help a team produce points. Tebow (generally) did not. You should therefore pick a different example than to claim that Tebow's "success" story is related to either his football skills, which are few to this point. Or was that it was, in fact, much of a success story. Mark Sanchez also won a playoff game as a starting quarterback and his job was perceived as in jeopardy even before Tebow arrived. It's hard to use Tebow's past season as a good yardstick for success when it compares favorably to that of Sanchez's previous years in that respect. Even where the argument about skill acquisition matters, which I think it does and I don't believe very much in "luck" versus other explanations like random noise and networking effects, you picked a terrible example to make this point.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Should Presidents have military experience?

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:52 +0000

Eisenhower? Jackson? Grant? Washington? Kennedy? What wars did they start? You can make a case for both Roosevelts, Bush 1, and Truman here, but overall previous military experience does not correlate with military belligerence in diplomacy. Meanwhile, Woodrow Wilson didn't have any relevant military experience. Neither did W, or for that matter Obama (see: Afghanistan and Libya). This theory does not hold up to any level of scrutiny.

DEBATEitOUT.com : Is Facebook worth $50 billion?

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:36:50 +0000

It is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. If you think it's worth less, then start short selling. This is where you get paid if its stock value goes below a certain figure that you pick in a set amount of time but you will lose your money if the stock rises. Putting your money where your mouth is on a topic is a surer way to achieve certainty in your opinions than expressing them loudly and with derision for people who disagree with you.