Debates

okay, apparently this got deleted, and people have asked me to do it again, so I am.

Maybe you should describe what this topic is about, for those who havent seen the original yet

if any members have any longstanding disagreements on a subject, they can talk about it.

I disagree with smoking... not wanting to start a flame war, but we could debate smoking in public places, if anyone is interested.

Yes, i agreee. I don't think people should smoke like downtown, or throw their butts out the car window, or smoke IN your house.

I completely agree. Nothing is worse than trying to walk in a store, and have the smell of smoke as you come in. I know that there aren't a whole lot of places to put your puts, but there are garbage cans everywhere. Put it out, and throw it in the garbage. Simple enough.. I think. Smokers get mad at non-smokers because they don't understand. Well, I think smokers don't understand from our point of view.

Now let's look at the health risks of second hand smoke. These facts are from the site above.

Exposure for as little as 8 to 20 minutes causes physical reactions linked to heart and stroke disease:7
The heart rate increases
The heart's oxygen supply decreases
Blood vessels constrict which increases blood pressure and makes the heart work harder.

So there we go... there are a lot more stats on that site, if you care to have a look. I know I don't want to die.

I agree that smoking should be banned in certain places, but I don't think that we should ban it in public places.

If we ban it , that would actually be bordering on persecution.

public places.

If we ban it

Not to offend any of the smokers on the forums, but I think it should be banned in ALL public places.

This may not be a perfect comparison, but it's pretty close...

An alcoholic is in MAJOR trouble if they drink on the street, Smokers aren't very different, it's an addiction, and they choose to satisfy this in a public area at the expense of others.

perhaps we should have enclosed areas on the street to prevent the smoke from offending others, similar to how we have phone booths to prevent your call from being heard by others.

Ontario has already banned smoking in restaurants and other public buildings, negating Roll's point about walking into a building and smelling it.

But the inconsiderate smokers outside are still a problem. the ones that enjoy it WAY too much, and always have a cloud of smoke around their heads are the ones that irritate me.

A lot of people are cool about it, and try not to offend others with it, but some just don't care.

as for the littering, it is exactly that. I think we need more garbage cans with ashtrays in the top of them. Then there's no excuse, and the people that would still pitch the butts on the ground are the problem. and should be given a moderate fine, enough to convince them to take the 10 steps to the trash can. This last point is depentant on cities to actually place more trash cans around populated areas.

I've got no response for your point about addiction, but I disagree with your point about littering.

People can be inconsiderate, but that isn't a reason to ban them. After all, people can be equally obnoxious with gum. However, lit cigarette butts pose a potential fire risk, so a stiff fine may well be in order, as you suggested. However, I think the littering argument does not warrant banning cigarettes alltogether.

This may not be a perfect comparison, but it's pretty close...

An alcoholic is in MAJOR trouble if they drink on the street, Smokers aren't very different, it's an addiction, and they choose to satisfy this in a public area at the expense of others.

hmmmm... I'm not sure of that being very close at all actually. The reason you can't drink on the street is because it's an addiction that can actually inhibit your decisions. I've never had cigarettes cause me to... say... stumble or fall over because it was not causing me to think right.

I do hate it when people throw their butts everywhere though. Over at the college there's a butt-can (not sure of what they're really called, but it's the longneck deal), and people literally will not take two steps in it's direction to use it. Myself and maybe two others were the only ones who would use it... that used to annoy the hell out of me.

Anyway, I don't think it should be banned in ALL public places. If I were to go to a bar around here to sit back and have a beer, and COULDN'T have a cigarette... I'd be a bit pissed The argument of people at bars not wanting to smell cigarettes is pretty much null and void. Since the beginning of time bars they have been known as "seedy" in the first place. Everyone knows what a bar is like.

I didn't suggest full out prohibition, I just said in public areas. As Roth stated, there are people who are cool, and then there are the ones that are ruining it for the considerate people.

I am certainly against the plan to ban smoking in pubs and bars. It is already banned in Ireland and is coming to England sometime next year. The thing is that pubs and bars are by nature unhealthy places. You drink alcohol, eat fatty bar snacks and, if you want, smoke. I don't smoke myself, but I'm not about to walk into an unhealthy place and complain that people are doing unhealthy things.

There is an arguement that bar staff are subjected to the harmful smoke and that is why it should be banned. Well they knew this when they went for the job. I doubt a vegetarian would go for a job in a slaughter house, so why would an anti-smoker want to work in a bar. These days 99% of jobs are in smoke free environments so I don't buy anyone saying they have to work in such a job. My opinion: If you don't like the smoke, get out of the pub!

As for smoking outside in public places like the street, I'm not sure. I agree that it's bad when someone is smoking right in your face, but it's only the minority who do that. I'm on the fence.

I don't think it should be banned in bars, thats a bit far. A bar without a cloud of smoke hovering 5 feet from the ground would seem odd to me. Just the littering gets me...
And i am certainly glad they banned it in resturaunts, were there are small children. I hate seeing mothers and fathers smoking in their babys faces, or in the house with their children. Open the window, for christs sake.

I knew a vegan who worked in a meat packing plant. Perhaps the strangest thing I'd ever heard was when he told me where he worked.

But yeah. On topic, I use the butt disposers when they're around. I can understand people wanting bans on smoking indoors. The Ontario smoking ban does not bother me in the least. I can even understand making us stand a certain distance away from doors. I will comply with any of that because it's all understandable.

But if you tell me I can't smoke while walking down the street or sitting in a park, well then. That's something I just can't do. If you live in a city, cigarettes are probably the least of your worries when it comes to air quality.

I can understand not wanting to sit in a smoky restaurant while you're trying to eat. But I'm not going to give you cancer if I sit beside you on a bench in the park. All of those factories and cars downtown might have something to do with it. And I'm definately not going to blow smoke in your face.

There are frequent smog warnings in Toronto. And I'm having a cigarette. And I get "Put that out, it's disgusting."

As a "on and off" smoker (of ciggies) for the past 10 years (I swear, I'm not additcted). I agree with some points that were made and have to disagree with others.
I feel they should allow smoking in bars (some counties here in MN it is not UNallowed). Are you really hanging out in the bar for a "healthy" reason to begin with? You're there to drink (which is not too good for the body), you are there to eat those yummy bad for you bar food (sorry, not good for you either), and some people are there for the sole purpose to "pick up men/women" and lure them home for sex (which can be considered unhealthy depending on how they go about it). You're already killing your body, I don't think cigarrettes are going to finish off the job that has already been started by you stepping into the bar. Besides, I don't know about anyone else that smokes, but a cig sure can coat the tongue to get that nasty, stiff drink down!

I must say that it is rather icky to smell smoke while you're eating. It annoys me when my mom will light up and blow smoke at me while I'm trying to eat. Even when I was a constant smoker, I NEVER had so little respect for other people (at least when it came to my smoke).
I do think it's deplorable when mother/fathers smoke in a car, windows rolled up with their kids in it (can't they either wait or open a window?).

As for littering people that do it should have a harsh penilty. Do you see garbage all over Singapore? Probably not, because they CANE the people that litter. If you do that a few hundred times I'm sure no one in their right mind would litter ever again.

Does anyone else get annoyed as I do about all the damn graffiti out there? It's getting so out of control!

I agree that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Its not healthy for people to be around.

I do I guess, but if you think of it in another way, its amazing work. I mean think how much work goes into making something like graffti.

Unfortunately, most of it is pure crap.

Where I live all I see is "political" graffiti, such as "save so and so"

Its been four days, so I think I'll stir up some trouble. I am herebye making the contention that Mike Haggar of Final Fight fame could defeat Karnov in single combat.

One would at first think that Karnov would win, considering that he is a fat, bald, firebreathing Russan, which kicks ass. However, one must also consider that Mike Haggar is the street fighting lumberjack-mayor of Metro City, which also kicks ass.

Comments?

How can you even begin to question Karnov's POWer? Its no contest.

People get whacked over those kind of comments in "the sopranos"

On mustaches alone, Karnov wins. Also, He may be fat but he as agile as a gazelle.
Yet Haggar is a lumberjack....and has braces...damn.

Yay Debates is back, i agree upon who brought it back.

And Duh Karnov could take on the ultimate Super Soldier.

I just don't like "best game ever" lists. But it's most likely to do with my own opinion on what games are good and not.

I disagree with just about any kind of "console bashing". The strange thing is, it doesn't matter which console, I will instinctively "defend" it somehow.

I also heavily "debate" most (if not all)

Observed, and noted.

As for the ladder, Haggar could crouch, forcing Karnov to move lower on the ladder to fire on him. Haggar stands up, grabs him, and pile drives him. Once off the ladder, he combos Karnov.

At this point, Karnov could use another POWer up to temporarily fend off Haggar, but he can't be stopped for long, because he's a freaking streetfighter/lumberjack.

However, Haggar would most certainly be in trouble if Karnov managed to get to the top of the ladder and use the wings.

Karnov can only use the wings at certain places.

So... who won that debate? I'm not sure anymore.

David's awesome avatars won that debate. But as long as we're reviving this topic...

I had a debate the other day with someone because they wouldn't print a certain story in their newspaper. Let's just say... it was about the way Holocaust survivors were treated after WW2. And it wasn't very nice. But she wouldn't print it.

And I think that she should have let the story run. Even though I disagreed with the article itself, "because freedom of speech is about being able to print really awful things and get away with it. Basically."

It depends on whether or not the article was blatantly offensive. You see, freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want. However, you are still responsible for what you say. You can't just "get away with it".
Just look at Marge Schott.

If you are punished or looked down upon for what you say, how is that of speech?

The freedom is to what you want. If you say something blatantly offensive, you are held responsible by your peers. The government doesn't arrest you for being racist, but your friends might call you on it.

Ah Yes, Yes Indeed.

Looking back on this forum, the single biggest "debate" until now was on the "Greatest Album ever" topic which started somewhere right around .

Jerk-like behavior ensues.

That's right. I remember that. I arrived on the scene as it had allready wound down... I'm always missing the boat, it seems.

However, there been a certain disagreement as to whether or not Suito Homu is a survial horror...

I don't know about " horror", but as far as "survival horror" goes...

Random, turn-based battles and RPG style leveling up does NOT a "survival horror" game make.

'Suito Homu' or 'Sweet Home' is a "horror themed role-playing game" at best.

I don't know about "

Touche'.

Random, turn-based battles and RPG style leveling up does NOT a "survival horror" game make.

'Suito Homu' or 'Sweet Home' is a "horror themed role-playing game" at best.

The way I see it, the battle system was downplayed by the atmosphere and certain key factors. The game wasn't just . Usually, when a game had no towns, it was an arcade-style game or dungeon crawler (Arkirsta's Ring). If it was a full-on RPG, it had some form of town. Even Legend of Zelda, with it's nonstop gameplay, had shops.

Survival horror has no towns, to speak of. Furthermore, survival horror is about just that; survival. It forces the characters into a hostile, monstrous, and usually supernatural event from which they must escape and survive. Also, a large factor in the "traditional" survial horror is item management. You need to choose which items to use, which to conserve, and when. You can't them anywhere, so you have to be careful. THis was a huge factor in Sweet Home.

.

Jerk-like behavior ensues.

That is the first time I read that, and man, that is some funny stuff. I laughed out loud several times.

.

Jerk-like behavior ensues.

That is the first time I read that, and man, that is some funny stuff. I laughed out loud several times.

yeah same here. alot of what that 'RockNRoll' guy said literally made me "lol"

Actually, that's the first I've seen of that thread too, which is odd, because I make a point of reading everything posted here.

though it did all take place while I was moving...

The term "Role Playing Game" in its most literal definition simply means any game where you "play the role of" someone/something. Of course that would be about 98% of all games, so there has to be some way of drawing the line. Video game RPG's were originally extensions of pen-and-paper RPG games which involved turn based strategy battling and leveling up. Those are they key factors in determining what a RPG is even today.
Otherwise everything would be "role playing". The same can be said of "survival horror". Just because it has "horror" and "survival" elements, it still doesn't deserve the title because the game play doesn't fit it.

Good point.
...
Okay. That threw me. But I'm not out of the game yet!

Calling a game a "dungeon crawler" is like calling 'Halo' a "run-and-gun" or 'Ninja Gaiden' a "jump-and-slash". Those aren't real genre titles but more like a descriptive explaination.

Aren't genre titles descriptive explanations in themselves? However, I concede the point to you.

Touche, again. , the town is the setting. It isn't a town in the traditonal RPG sense (ie buy items, meet NPCs, then get back to the action).

In a "modern" survival horror, yes. However, if one believes that Sweet Home was an early forerunner of the genre, then one recognize the rudimentary elements of today's standards being used. (I don't mean to sound like a d***che, it just comes out that way.) Suito Homu was the neanderthal of survival horror. It was leaving an existing genre and entering a new one. It wasn't perfect because it pretty much invented Survival Horror.

Of course, I do not know when Biohazard came out, so I may just be full of myself.

And it was the closest factor in making the decision for me not to call 'Sweet Home' a "survival horror" game a somewhat difficult choice. A lot of the elements are there, but not enough to give it the title.

By Contrast, 'Friday the 13th' would be closer to a "survival horror" game.

Sweet Home = Horror RPG

See earlier argument.

Iggy and the Stooges "Raw POWer" = Greatest Album EVER!

Well, of course.

This looks like court!

When ZEN argues, it always looks like court. RocknRoll Jerk didn't have much of a chance. Neither do I, for that matter, because I think I've played all my cards... Not sure, though.

Anything is possible if you try!

Why do people say that? No, it isnt possible to do anything you try. "Hey, lets go jump off the CN Tower and see if we get up and go get some burgers"

He, he, good point! I don't think that the people who came up with that expression meant it that literally though. I suppose the expression means that people who wants to achieve something, if they really put their guts into it, they'll reach it.

Who (Unless they're commiting suicide) would do that?

Who

Who (Unless they're commiting suicide) would do that?

A person with Schizophrenia or high on PCP could possibly find this to to a rational thought and put their plan into action. I once knew someone who has Schizophrenia and blacked out and did crazy stuff (not as weird as jumping off towers but crazy stuff all the same). "Anything is possible if you try"!

O.K, here's something to debate.
How much, if any, of a part did Sony have in the decline of Sega? Was the Saturn doomed anyway? etc.

I'd say it was doomed anyway. Panzer Dragoon and Alien versus Predator were the only stellar Saturn games that I could think of.

Okay, double posting, sue me.

Just doing this to wrap something up. Courtesy of ZEN, I was able to see the Karnov movie. So, after seeing it, I now realize the Haggar vs. Karnov debate is settled. Karnov, no contest.

Also, if you haven't seen it, make sure you do. It's simply the second best movie known to man.

Amen to that.

Here's what I do instead of double posting. I copy what I have said in the previous post, then delete it. I make a new post, paste the info that was in the first post, and add the new info underneath. Doesn't make a double post, But still bumps the thread and people will read the newly added content!

Tricky, tricky. I like it. It goes well with the rest of my non-asian ninja skills.

O.K, here's something to debate.
How much, if any, of a part did Sony have in the decline of Sega? Was the Saturn doomed anyway? etc.

Sony didn't play a huge part... Sega was hurting from the Sega CD flop, and the 32x flop. Also, the Saturn was hell to program for due to the fact that only one of the SH2 CPUs could access RAM at a time.

Also, it was designed primarily for amazing 2D, which wasn't what consumers wanted at the time.

Further, Bernie Stolar felt that the North American market would be uninterested in all of those awesome 2D RPGs, and 'caused them to not be released here along with heaps of other awesome-ness.

The Saturn was pretty much doomed before it hit the shelves... cost, complexity to develop for, lack of "killer apps"...

Also, if you haven't seen it, make sure you do. It's simply the second best movie known to man.

Only Second?

Being the second best movie known to man is a very high honor!

Besides, everyone knows that the single greatest movie made by mankind was "Manos: Hands of Fate".

I heard the Saturn was helluvah difficult to develop for. It's just that many people seem to think that Sony are single handedly to blame for the demise of Sega. But s*** happens.

Okay, new topic; I would like to broadcast my undoubtedly unpopular opinion that the NES version of Altered Beast was better than any other incarnation (inluding the Sega Genesis version). This does include the modernized "Project: Altered Beast".

Any contenders to this statement?

what?!

include the modernized "Project: Altered Beast".

Any contenders to this statement?

Okay, I haven't completed this game 100% yet, but I got to the level where you can be a shark (lame level by the way). I think it's a pretty good game, but I like BIG characters when I play my Altered Beast. The fact that you can play as two other beasts was a neat idea (lion-man and shark), but the levels were plainly set up. I see nothing that makes it better than the Arcade or Genesis versions... nothing. I even like the SMS version better. The characters are just ENTIRELY too small. I may end up purchasing the Famicom version as a reproduction someday, because it'd be cool to have, BUT!... it's not better by a long shot.

Damn, forgot about SMS... anyway, I think the NES version was superior to the more advanced systems because of a few reasons.

It had more levels (the genesis one had what, four?), you could double-jump, which was a very nice feature, and I personally think gameplay fit the NES better than the more advanced systems. I mean, you couldn't find a more basic brawler.

But really, what made me like it better was the first boss. I had always hated him, since he was fat, fleshy, fugly, and freakish. But when I played the NES version, lo and behold, he's some badass demon. Superficial? Yes. Petty? Yes. Narrowminded? Maybe... now stop asking me questions.

'Altered Beast' for the NES is 'Bad Dudes' with "furries".

'Altered Beast' on systems are (is?) 'Bad Dudes' with furries.
What's not to like?

Never forget about the SMS, it had a better library of games than most people think and/or give it credit for

Five actually. The SMS version had four though, leaving out the cavern level.

Nice feature, sure. Needed, no. There's rarely even a time when you can utilize a double jump to avoid anyone. It's more of what they used to make you jump on that version (directional pad up). What else would they do to make you jump higher? Well, directional pad up of course. I really don't think it was intentional to make it as a double jump, just a way to make you jump higher since they went with that controller set-up.

Basic gameplay does NOT make a game better for a less POWerful system. Take Streets of Rage on the SMS. A very well done port from the Genesis version, basic gameplay and all. There was still a key element missing that made Streets of Rage what it was. Do you know what that key element was? Two-player co-op. What is missing from the Famicom version of Altered Beast?

hmmm... it seems to be the same boss to me. The color is just different to suit the limitations of the Famicom as compared to later systems (or more POWerful).

Basic gameplay does NOT make a game better for a less POWerful system. Take Streets of Rage on the SMS. A very well done port from the Genesis version, basic gameplay and all. There was still a key element missing that made Streets of Rage what it was. Do you know what that key element was? Two-player co-op. What is missing from the Famicom version of Altered Beast?

Hey... that's right, I'd forgotten about that....

hmmm... it seems to be the same boss to me. The color is just different to suit the limitations of the Famicom as compared to later systems (or more POWerful).

Actually, I do maintain my position on this one. I still think it's different boss design. There does seem to be a slight difference between them.

honestly, what's the difference? they look like the same exact boss. the Genesis version looks different because it's 16 bits and they can give more detail to the graphics

Well... seeing as how no one else sees it, I that I am...

Who am I kidding? I just wanted to argue. Still, he cooler.

yo genius, edit your post next time. but i'm sure you already knew that, being the genius you are

Totally. Moving on... Does anyone feel that Altered Beast is undeserving of a "classic" title?

I got a debate.. Jacka**es that yap on the cellphone and try to occupy the same space that your car currently occupies. I can't tell you how many accidents I've had to avoid because Mrs. Soccer mom is busy talking about her gynocologist visit instead of paying attention to the road. I move that cellphones be banned while driving.. or in the movie theater cause I paid waay to much to see a movie just to unwillingly listen to some jerk who doesn't understand common courtesy. Or at a restuarant, I don't want to hear about grandma's anal atrophy surgery while I eat my dinner.

I move to ban cellphones period on the grounds that they aggravate me so. SO there!

I have to disagree. I think cellphones are a great thing. I pay only $40 dollars a month and I get 1,000 mins, 8 state no roam, free long distance, free nights and weekends, and I ALWAYS have serVice (I don't know why but I do ).

It works great for me because I am barely ever home and I talk with my family often. I also like to be the guy you can call on at any hour for help with ANYTHING. And with a pregnant wife it will be great not to miss the birth of my child . It also comes in handy with my job.

However, I do not think everyone should be allowed to have one(for reasons mentioned by 14thpatriot and Barbiejennigirl). It would be nice if you had to take an IQ test, and an ability to multi-task test prior to owning one. But if that was possible then it would be possible to give those to people before they get they're drivers liscense, solving most of the above problem! .

I wouldn't blame all of the driving problems on Cellphones. If they aren't talking on it they would be doing something else to take away they're attention.
FOR EXAMPLE: My girlfriend, this may be hard to follow as is she, First she gets in the car and starts it. Then she puts her purse away and does all that other girly stuff. Then puts it in drive, then back in park to put on her seatbelt, Then back into drive and starts going. Then she turns on the wipers and fluid because she likes a clean winshield. Then turns on the radio. Then she damn near slams on the brakes trying to remember if she locked the apartment door, debates it and sometimes goes back to check........ She does all of this before she hits the open road, so you can imagine everthing she does in traffic. I left out alot of stuff, trying not to bore you.

Point being: Some people can't drive/use common sense. So don't blame it on cellphones, that is how things get ruined for people that use them properly.

Are we talking about using a hands free set in your car or actually holding your phone while you drive? The latter is illegal in the UK and you'll get pulled by the police if they see you doing it. I agree with that, seeming as driving with only one hand free is dangerous no matter how good a driver you are. I don't see anything wrong with using a hands free kit though. It's the same as talking to a passenger in the car (unless you want to ban that to).

The idea of a hands free cellphone in the car sounds alright. If I remember correctly they were talking about making that a law in congress a couple years back. Probably some whiney douchebag lobby group whined about it infringing on people rights. (As what happens with any common sense law) But no, I was talking mainly about people who hold the phone and talk.

I heard on the news some places in America actually have cell phone jammers. Like in the theaters, churches and hospitals. What a wonderful idea. Again there is a special interest group protesting it infringes on a person's god given right to be a jerkoff.

I move to ban special intrest groups as well as cellphones, but not hands free sets.. but they have to be hardwired into the vechicle.

i don't agree with the banning of cell phones. right now i don't really need it for my job, but in a few months, when i start my new job (in construction, i'll basically be delivering random things like lumber, pipes, shingles, tools, etc. along with checking on different job sites to see how they're coming along and to see if the inspections have passed or failed) so i'll pretty much HAVE to have a cell phone to keep in touch with the big boss man and let him know about troubles, or problems with anything. also i'll need a cell phone to set up appointments and such with head builders and various other people int he field (plumbers, ccntractors, stuck-o, roofers, you get the point). the main part of my job involves driving around alot, so i'll hardly ever be around a stationary phone.

i agree with what someone said in an above post (i it was Logandbz) about IQ tests and multi-tasking tests. or you should atleast have to take some kind of test or course to be able to use a cell phone while driving. the test should be hard too, not some walk in the park obvious test like the actual drivers liscense test.

The current tests are way too easy!!!! Most everyone I know never had to take a driving test

Well when used properly cell phones are a valuable tool like in Campkill's job. I'm talking about the other 99% of the cellphone population.