De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st

[Hornfinger]

After 10 pages the fact remains the same.


If a couple of pounds under the weight limit makes no difference to a fighters performance on the night, why would pacroid, and his team of gay homo erotic cheating drug dealers, insist on the catch weight or lower weightclass?
,
If it made no difference Pacroid would have fought DLH at 154, Cotto at 147, Margarito at 154.

[Hornfinger]

Sorry but your posts are ridiculous. So in your OWN words, it's not usually a big deal for a fighter to come down a couple of pounds and still beat up the little guy, it's what you would expect.

But because Pacquiao beats them, then obviously this proves the exception where the loss of a pound was pivotal and turned the fight result on its head?

Bigger men like Hopkins goes down and beat the smaller fighter

but if its Pacquiao. The smaller man beat up the bigger men because he weight drains him.

classic!!


LOL!

The question is, are Pacroids opponants weakend/weight drained due to having to come down in weight? Well I'd say yes cuz they've all looked cack and lost.

Was Hopkins weight drained? Hard to tell cuz he won easily.

Why did no one make a fuss about B-Hop coming down? Because he won easily, and he was fighting ODH the most popular fighter in the sport who everyone want to win the fight.

Does that make it easy for you to understand?

[Hornfinger]

And finally.........

If pacroid had lost to DLH, Cotto and margarito would we be having this conversation? No because there would be no debate. Those fighters would have won so you can't debate the reason why they lost.....

[fan johnny]

Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.

thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz

of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related

No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills.

Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.

Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.

Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.

[Gandalf]

Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.

thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz

of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related

No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills.

Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.

Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.

Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.

To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.

You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.

[fan johnny]

Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.

thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz

of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related

No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills.

Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.

Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.

Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.

To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.

You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.

I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".

Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.

[Kev]

After 10 pages the fact remains the same.


If a couple of pounds under the weight limit makes no difference to a fighters performance on the night, why would pacroid, and his team of gay homo erotic cheating drug dealers, insist on the catch weight or lower weightclass?
,
If it made no difference Pacroid would have fought DLH at 154, Cotto at 147, Margarito at 154.

Who has said it made no difference? We are saying that being weight drained was not a factor.

There are many people on here arguing that if Marquez is to fight Manny the fight shouldn't be above 140 because Marquez doesn't carry the weight as well as Manny, and that it is fairer to fight at junior welter than welter as Marquez is not a welterweight.

The argument isn't that Manny will be weight drained at 140, he could make the weight no problem. It's just that he is suited to a lower weight class.

Well it's the same for Manny. Manny is not nearly as big as Antonio Margarito, and is considerably smaller than Miguel Cotto also. He's NOT a junior middleweight. He entered the ring against Margarito weighing 148lbs, compared to Margarito's 165.

If it wasn't a catchweight Margarito would have likely entered the ring at 170. That would be a 22lb weight advantage. That's a big difference!

How can you not see this? When two guys are different sizes they have find somewhere to meet, a weight to fight at. Against Cotto it was agreed 145, against Margarito it was agreed 150. You could make exactly the same argument for fighting Cotto at full welter, why not at 154? And why not fight Margarito at 160?

The higher they go the more it favours the bigger man because Manny isn't gaining weight. He's being massively outweighed.

I've said it many times but I will reiterate it. Your posts are ridiculous.

[Kev]

and Generalbulldog is dead wrong about answering questions with questions being a poor form of debate. As I've already said, the Son of God handled people almost exclusively like that. Done correctly it's the best form of destroying an argument.

Instead of getting into a debate (which obviously God is far too smart to do) He just redirected people's accusations and questions back to them. It was genuis.

As an example. The Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus out for his going around and forgiving people's sins, even when they were to be executed according to God's OWN law. So they tried to trap him in his own words by dragging a woman caught in the very act of adultary before him and demanding that she be stoned to death. How could HE reason HIS way out of this one they thought. He'll have to contradict Himself now and defy the word of God if He proposes to forgive her and deny the righteous punishment due to her.

But what did Jesus do? He didn't get into a debate, or argue why they were wrong. He just said 'Let him who is without sin throw the first stone'. He just turned it around on them. They demanded justice, but he deflected the accusation back on them. If they demand justice then justice applies to them too. They tried to trick Him and instead became trapped by their OWN accusations and demands.

Genius. A true genuis NEVER gets involved in lenghty debates and meet questions head on. They deflect the opponent's aggression like a push hands martial artist so that when they attack they hit only air and are knocked off balance by their own attack.

Generalbulldog does not have a clue on this.

[generalbulldog]

Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.

thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz

of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related

No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills.

Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.

Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.

Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.

To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.

You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.

I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".

Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.

You do not answer a question with a question, just the basics of debating. You're talking about some sociology class you took, I"m talking about some debating/speech class that I took for my general ed years ago in college. 2 entirely different fields.

It seriously implies not being able to give a decent rebuttal on the question and a complete sidetracking of it in this case to another topic. And I'm pretty sure the guy I was debating with isn't some deep critical thinker.

I asked how come there were barely any outrage over other recent catchweight bouts and got fired right back with some question that has no relation at all to the topic. Now this topic has veered into Pacquiao taking drugs by the same guy who can't answer other people's questions, when the topic was originally about catchweights.

[fan johnny]

Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.

thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz

of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related

No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills.

Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.

Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.

Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.

To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.

You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.

I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".

Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.

You do not answer a question with a question, just the basics of debating. You're talking about some sociology class you took, I"m talking about some debating/speech class that I took for my general ed years ago in college. 2 entirely different fields.

It seriously implies not being able to give a decent rebuttal on the question and a complete sidetracking of it in this case to another topic. And I'm pretty sure the guy I was debating with isn't some deep critical thinker.

I asked how come there were barely any outrage over other recent catchweight bouts and got fired right back with some question that has no relation at all to the topic. Now this topic has veered into Pacquiao taking drugs by the same guy who can't answer other people's questions, when the topic was originally about catchweights.

You missed the point completely. Answering a question with a question is done all the time in the real world. In your educated world, it is a rule you learned about in your "debating/speech class" that apparently has labeled people incorrectly outside of the structure in which you were taught. Inside of the rules you follow, the definition may work, but not outside of the rules. And It may very well be the guy you are talking about is a mindless idiot. however, I'm not defending him.

My point is, Answering a question with a question is common and has it's applications. It does not mean a person using this method of debating does not have critical thinking skills. Since you don't believe me, here is a general link about the methodology. Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can easily find others in a google search explaining the methodology and the history of the definition.

BTW: Debating and Speech are taught under the category of Social Sciences.

Sorry for the OT, Guys...

[Julius Rain]

After 10 pages the fact remains the same.


If a couple of pounds under the weight limit makes no difference to a fighters performance on the night, why would pacroid, and his team of gay homo erotic cheating drug dealers, insist on the catch weight or lower weightclass?
,
If it made no difference Pacroid would have fought DLH at 154, Cotto at 147, Margarito at 154.

After 10 pages you and Milmacas are still the two the forum is laughing at.

[mafiajoey]

After 10 pages the fact remains the same.


If a couple of pounds under the weight limit makes no difference to a fighters performance on the night, why would pacroid, and his team of gay homo erotic cheating drug dealers, insist on the catch weight or lower weightclass?
,
If it made no difference Pacroid would have fought DLH at 154, Cotto at 147, Margarito at 154.

After 10 pages you and Milmacas are still the two the forum is laughing at.

According to who is online right now the only one laughing is me, cause you got PacRoids balls in your mouth. I figured out Pac must be on Roids...cause his balls have shrunk enough that his ball lickers can mouth his balls and not gag and still type. You probably think that guy in your avatar has changed the country too lol

[Kev]

Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.

thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz

of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related

No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills.

Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.

Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.

Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.

To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.

You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.

I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".

Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.

You do not answer a question with a question, just the basics of debating. You're talking about some sociology class you took, I"m talking about some debating/speech class that I took for my general ed years ago in college. 2 entirely different fields.

It seriously implies not being able to give a decent rebuttal on the question and a complete sidetracking of it in this case to another topic. And I'm pretty sure the guy I was debating with isn't some deep critical thinker.

I asked how come there were barely any outrage over other recent catchweight bouts and got fired right back with some question that has no relation at all to the topic. Now this topic has veered into Pacquiao taking drugs by the same guy who can't answer other people's questions, when the topic was originally about catchweights.

You missed the point completely. Answering a question with a question is done all the time in the real world. In your educated world, it is a rule you learned about in your "debating/speech class" that apparently has labeled people incorrectly outside of the structure in which you were taught. Inside of the rules you follow, the definition may work, but not outside of the rules. And It may very well be the guy you are talking about is a mindless idiot. however, I'm not defending him.

My point is, Answering a question with a question is common and has it's applications. It does not mean a person using this method of debating does not have critical thinking skills. Since you don't believe me, here is a general link about the methodology. Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can easily find others in a google search explaining the methodology and the history of the definition.

BTW: Debating and Speech are taught under the category of Social Sciences.

Sorry for the OT, Guys...

GB is completely and utterly wrong on this. Deflecting questions with questions of your own is an essential part of debating in the real world. Clearly he has never watched prime ministers question times, or witnessed a trial.

[Gandalf]

I agree with GB. If you deflect a question with another question then you don't really have much of a debate. If someone is going to avoid your question by asking another question then you might as well ask them another question back or even repeat your own original question. Maybe they would just repeat their question or else ask another one, but at the end of the day the discussion is effectively over. Who wants to listen to a bunch of people asking questions, but never actually answering anything? That isn't debating at all and indicates an inability to answer the question or at the least a refusal to engage in proper debate. It is silly.

[Kev]

I agree with GB. If you deflect a question with another question then you don't really have much of a debate. If someone is going to avoid your question by asking another question then you might as well ask them another question back or even repeat your own original question. Maybe they would just repeat their question or else ask another one, but at the end of the day the discussion is effectively over. Who wants to listen to a bunch of people asking questions, but never actually answering anything? That isn't debating at all and indicates an inability to answer the question or at the least a refusal to engage in proper debate. It is silly.

Well in that case get back to your wikileaks thread and answer my qestions!

1.How have Israel been made to look bad by the wikileak revelations,give examples.
2.What revelelations about America have been damaging for them? I would argue that the leaks are mostly mundane apart from the insight into the true sentiment in the middle east, which is that the Arab nations hate each other as much as they hate the Jews, and that they regard Iran, NOT Israel as the biggest threat to the region.
3. You dismissed the views of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria relating to Iran as being irrelevent because they are dictatorships and not democracies. What true democracies are there in the Middle East? I can only think of one...........but you they hate them worst of all