From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Vote
|
Score: 10.5 Persons who "debate"
|
| Nominated by:
|
— Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
|
For: 16
|
 Nom + For - A very tidy article — Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)- For. I'm going to start taking advantage of the Argument of the Beard... Mister Otter 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Self-for --Knucmo2 10:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:08, Sep 26
- For. 208.107.249.98 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- For --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- cool 69.123.239.65 02:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. 71.164.117.14 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. I likez a lots
 Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate  21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. 129.210.51.153 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak For. Got the required amount of chuckles from me. --UU - natter
 12:42, Oct 6
- For. 70.137.140.29 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. JudgeZarbi
 TALK 13:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. Catliver2 13:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. Not bad. Catroaster 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. LuccaRF 11:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- For.
     13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. 69.123.239.65 22:47, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 5.5
|
- Against. Beard arguement while nonsensical isn't actually funny. The ending is weak and doesn't mesh with the tone of the earlier writing. If you're so sure that you'd win the arguement (and you've just written a HowTo on just that) why waste time on discussing how you'd fail? Especially discussions regarding how to debase yourself since you've failed. Not enough follow through. Quasispace 06:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Against Well I was going to abstain but that Quasispace guy actually has a good argument... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     11:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- No Likey. -RAHB 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Against. Sir Severian
  (Sprich mit mir!)  12:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Against. Amy Rose 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Against. Underwhelming. 72.1.195.8 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
- Sex with Randolph says that nothing lives up to the toast article. 68.173.178.171 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I don't think Quasispace has a point. The 'Argument of the Beard' is a pun on a well-known fallacy - there is also the picture which accompanies the section, which I and my reviewer Cajek found to be very funny. Quasi must have realised that the tone of the article is written by a know-all who is actually not that good at winning arguments, hence, the ludicrous suggestions he makes. If he was any good at winning arguments, there would not be the HowTo, because you win arguments through reasoned, logical discussion. Jeez, that's funny isn't it? Perhaps I should have done that. Oh wait, this isn't Wikipedia. Know-all's always have an element of insecurity about them, and when they lose, they are usually bad-losers, hence the apparently 'debasing' behaviour at the end. --Knucmo2 11:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't find it as funny, primarily because it wasn't ludicrous enough. You could have mentioned that if the opponent has a beard, a proper tactic would involve lighting the beard on fire and then saying that they're obviously wrong or their beard wouldn't be on fire. The image while amusing, would be stronger if the person in the photo was also pointing at the beard in question. Knowitalls are identified by their desire to show everyone that they /knowitall/. They'd obviously try to write a HowTo that would point out their primacy on the subject. Even knowitalls commit to their fallacies. They make up excuses about how they are still right. They'll say the reason they lost was the sun was in their eyes, their dad was just hit by a car, Hitler just invaded Holland, or some other unrelated issue. Though you did well in avoiding the obvious Godwin method to win an arguement. Quasispace 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- abstain. ah, can't make up my mind on this one. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that none of our articles appeal to Quasispace.... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Give it (quasi)time, they'll find something --Knucmo2 12:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Of the articles that I remember where the two of you were involved, they were funny, but not quite hilarious yet. Now off to the Comedy Mines with the lot of you! Quasispace 03:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
