I wish political arguing were objective as classic gaming.

[homerwannabee]

Now granted there are exceptions to the rule, but often I have found that a person with a grade school education with very little knowledge of politics can argue with a person with a PhD in Political science with extensive knowledge of politics, and come away from an argument thinking they just won a political argument despite just the opposite happening.
For instance, let's take a look at Mark Kiehl, and Clayton Brookins in regards to Donkey Kong Junior ability.  Mark has a score that is 300k larger than Clayton.  There is no debate, Mark is the better Donkey Kong Junior player.  There is not a sane person who would argue otherwise.
When it comes to classic gaming competitions, it's simple.  High score wins.  One person walks away knowing they won, and the other walks away knowing they lost.  I just wish political discussions could go the same way.  Life would be sooooo much easier for everyone conservative, and liberal alike.

Like I said though, there are exceptions to the rule.  Like the Yolympics we had this year.

Edit: Please don't involve your political views in this thread.  This is more about how awesome classic gaming is, and how subjective political arguing is.

[WCopeland]

[f_symbols]

! No longer available

[homerwannabee]

And opinions are subjective.  Hence why I wish the world was more OBJECTIVE like classic video games are.

[TheSunshineFund]

You can reduce the fraction more to pretty much anything not involving math is subjective.

[homerwannabee]

You can reduce the fraction more to pretty much anything not involving math is subjective.

Oh, agreed.  I wish more math was involved in everyday debates.  I do have to say sports has progressed far in this area.  Basketball, Football, and Baseball are more math intensive than they have ever been.  It's common to see a team of statisticians on most of these pro sports teams.

[QAOP Spaceman]

I wish the world was more OBJECTIVE like classic video games are.

[homerwannabee]

And while you were looking for mocking pictures, and videos I was playing some awesome classic games.  #myactivitywasbetter 

[f_symbols]

And while you were looking for mocking pictures, and videos I was playing some awesome classic games.  #myactivitywasbetter 

[homerwannabee]

Some people are very close minded.    Well another one of my threads ruined by Ethan, and QAOP.  Congrats, on the good work.

[WCopeland]

Some people are very close minded.    Well another one of my threads ruined by Ethan, and QAOP.  Congrats, on the good work.

Sorry George, your threads are very hit-or-miss. This one's a miss.

[f_symbols]

George, relax.  My first comment was in response to Spacey, and my second was in response to your "better than you" response to Spacey. 

Considering how far "outside the box" your threads appear to be, I'm surprised you didn't even catch any relevance in the video I posted.  "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them"; Political "choice" is based on ones opinions regarding the best-fit model of success for society at large.  The Bill of Rights and the amendment system do a pretty decent job to guarantee that the objective idea of right and wrong can not be static nor can it infringe on personal freedom.  Highest score wins is as objective as it gets, there's no arguing over feelings about what makes a score higher, or who is paying for the process of getting there.  By nature our Constitution is designed such that people are free to live as they choose, the sweeping implications, on personal choice and political affiliations, essentially guarantee a divided public.

tl;dr  You can't expect objective outcomes from subjective processes; It's like trying to quantify religion, or trying to figure out the laziness of a temperature.
 

[marinomitch13]

If you are frustrated by the subjectivity you find in political discussions and want it to be more objective, then why not, whenever you encounter someone making an argument that is in some way grounded upon something subjective, ask them to give an objective grounding for the subjective grounds they are using for said argument?

For example, sometimes morality/ethics has a big influence on political discussions, and sometimes someone's ethics are subjectively grounded/determined (hence, in large part, why these types of discussions can come off as subjective). If you see that their subjective ethical system is highly involved in them making a political conclusion that you take issue with, then why not ask them to objectively ground why their ethic must have a subjective grounding to it?

Edit: Also: Donkey Kong. Now this post is totally legitimate on this forum.

[Verminator]

Not as objective as you think.

Case in point, I achieved the house high at Underground Retrocade (West Dundee, IL) on Frenzy with slightly more than 1 million about a year ago. Stats from that game:

Score: 1,006,802
Got to one million points in 7 hours and 35 minutes (132,000 points per hour)
At about 500,000, I got to 90 extra lives and dealt with the ROM issue for the first time
Took three 5 minute breaks and several 1 minute breaks
With the breaks, Kept my extra lives in the 45-75 range
Killed off the rest of my lives after 1 million with 56 remaining

A friend of mine later beat the score with 1,135,757 but ran out of lives, had no breaks, and never got to 20 extra lives.

He would agree I am the better Frenzy player, but he has the high score... SCOREBOARD. The burden is on me to take it back.