Labels Legends with descriptions

The following is a legend with a description and reasoning of all the labels I use.  I will also detail any acronyms or other thingys that I say and use throughout this blog.

Label Legend:


# stars- I usually grade pretty high and slant more towards the performance of those people for whom I support. There are exceptions though, and I am like many of the atheists out there interested in this subject who often praise WLC's skill...though not as much as others.

0 stars- Not actually a bad score, I just haven't listened to the debate yet.

1 star- I was going to have lower than 1 but I can't imagine myself bothering to review such an awful debate. So far the worst debate I have heard is 2 stars. Basically, this is a crappy, terrible, awful and bad, debate. Both of the debaters have to suck AND the Q&A also has to suck in order for me to give a debate this score. I try not to let sound or video quality inform my ranking too much but if I am gonna belittle a debate to such a crappy ranking, I think I will in this case.

1.25 stars- It might be tedious at having this ranking and the 1.75 ranking, but I think that if I listen to a debate so bad but it has maybe one funny statement or interesting moment then this might be useful.

1.5 stars- I guess I should admit that if it is a truly awful debate I will use this ranking. As I mention above, I do usually grade higher partly because I love debates.

1.75 stars- Sames as what I said in the previous three rankings.

2 stars- The theme of the 2-star ranking section should be: extreme disappointment. If a debate is uninteresting or boring it will usually get a 2-star ranking, though I will be a little bit nicer and more detailed in pointing out the bad parts of the debate along with some of the good parts. I for see myself using this rank and the next few on the most terrible debates I hear/watch.

2.25 stars- "

2.5 stars- "

2.75 stars- I am again, disappointed with any of the debates that get this ranking, but these ones in particular are probably gonna be the debates that had potential or at the very least, feature interesting ideas and/or people that I would like to hear more about/from in the future.

3 stars- The 3 star debates are just alright debates. There are more good points than bad points made by the debaters. The 3 star rankings should be noted as not featuring any particularly unique arguments, I should add

3.25 stars- This rank includes what I said in the previous rank but I will note even more perks in the performance of the debaters or in the Q&A section.

3.5 stars- A pretty solid debate. Furthermore, the 3.5 and above rated debates are the ones that I would recommend everyone check out though I might not explicitly say so in the given debate review and I will recommend debates lower than this ranking for certain reasons. 

3.75 stars- Solid but so close to being good/great is how I would describe the debates in this rank. This rank will have reviews that focus more on the negative parts of a given debate that stopped them from being bumped up a star.

4 stars- Good to great. Sometimes I will label these debates BEST for the interesting arguments, good performances or great Q&A sections they feature. I might keep a debate that I don’t necessarily think is that great in this rank or the next or higher if others have positively rated the debate. I might also let you guys know that a lot of the debates on this site will be in the 4 star rank because I am ranking the debates I like[d] and those that are quite popular first. As this blog (hopefully) continues, and I start reviewing debates because they recently happen or become available, I imagine that my reviews will become lower. 

4.25 stars- Okay, so these debates and onwards are definitely great debates. They will feature good performances, memorable moments, good Q&A segments and at least some form of novelty. Furthermore, wrt my bias, I would claim that these debates feature good performances from both sides. If the debate is a good one because I think the other side got devastated and this was due to them also being crappy debaters I will try to at least state this in a review.

4.5 stars- Pretty much the above, however this section and the next one will probably feature a little more discussion on the negative aspects of the debates. That is, I will usually mention the things that kept the debate from being a 5 star debate.

4.75 stars- Same as I mentioned above only these debates will OfC feature less complaints in my reviews. 

5 stars- The best debates. I usually always talk about flaws in all my reviews but if I do in the reviews in this category, they are very superficial. These are debates that I probably listen to several times and can’t get enough of.


911- 911 focused debate. These debates hold a soft spot for me because the conspiracy theory I know the most about is 911. Some of my own debates are on this topic.

Conspiracy Theory/theories- I have more specific CT labels (note the 911 one) but I will also use this one to have a bigger category.

Audio- I will try to have both the audio and video of a debate and label both accordingly.

Mp3- Most of the audio are .mp3s. I think I have one that is an .mov…

Video- Most of the video will be linked to YouTube, it’s more secure. I should mention that I might link to a video on YT but the video might be audio-only. I figured that people are unlike myself and would rather watch something on YouTube instead of uploading the debate onto their respective mp3 playing device.

BEST- Debates that I and/or others have deemed to be great debates. The ones that I for sure agree are the best debates are those that also have "BEST" in the blog post's title.

CHECK- There are some debates that I think aren't all that good, but I still feel need to be checked out by yous guys. Hence this label. 

Exclusive!- These are debates that I am uploading myself because they are no longer easily available on the web. I try to link to other sites that host these debates but if I can’t find them or don’t think they’ll be too stable for the long run or if they just no longer work, I will host these debates on myfriend’s site that he has so graciously allowed me to use.

TOP TEN- These are the top ten all-around debates. They are my favorite debates that feature good arguments, rich content and dialogue. They are also fun but the emphasis here is on the quality and hence the difference between these debates and the FUN TOP TEN debates.

FUN TOP TEN- These are the best and most entertaining debates. There is some rich dialogue here and there but expect more entertainment value out of these debates over the substance value!

GTP- I will label the debates I think theists (or people I disagree with) as GTP for Good/Great Theist Performance. This label and the latter label shant be too extensive for the time being and it should be pretty much a given that Craig always gives a great performance.

LAP- To show that I am at least kind of critical, I will label the debates that I think the atheists (or people I agree with) did poorly as LAP for Lame Atheist Performance.

ME- Debates that I am in! They're usually pretty ridiculous because I debate the Westboro Baptist Church, Charlie Check'm (homophobic atheist rapper) and 911 Truthers who sometimes resort to using numerology. This won't be a big category...

MR- This stands for More Reviews – I'll link to other’s reviews as well as writing my own. I usually link to Agnostic Popular Front (APF), Common Sense Atheism (CSA) and sometimes to Wintery Knight (WK). I’ll link to other reviews as well.

Multiple Debates- Sometimes two people debate each other multiple times and if I feel like there isn't too much difference between the debates and/or they're short I will post them in one review. Or I will collect all the debates of a specific person against different people into on post and have mini-reviews to highlight something about that person or something.

Topic Labels:

These are kind of in their infancy atm, the basics are:

Atheism- This is a nice and vague label, I will try and make the exact title of a debate into a label but I will include this one.

Conspiracy Theories- This includes 911, Vaccines, Moon Hoax and Holocaust Denialism. These are topics with a soft spot to my heart. I love CTs and all the tedious and bizarre arguments they are associated with!

Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design- Pretty self-evident – I should note that I say Creation, Creationists don’t like Creationism and I don’t wanna be offensive…I don’t find it offensive to couple ID with Creation, however.

Resurrection- I think all the debates concerning the Bible and Biblical Inerrancy

Recent- Because one of the more pragmatic reasons for this blog is to continue on rating these debates from the works of previous folk I am gonna explicitly point out the most recent debates with this label. Because of the quantity of debates that occur per year I am going to label all debates from 2012 and 2013 as recent.

Year ####- Self-evident, but because I want my ratings to be at the top of the labels section I say "year 2012" for example. So if you're searching by year, scroll to the bottom of the labels.

RE- This stands for Re-Edit. I do not consider myself a particularly strong writer and wish I was much more concise and succinct. I also change my mind, a lot. Or I will, wrt this blog, re-listen to a debate and decide to add more commentary, qualify something I wrote or flat out correct something I wrote. Since I do this a lot I will note at the bottom of the post the date that I edited a post like so:
Note that I won't do this for pages, just reviews and other posts.
Also note: I only decided to do this on 6-30-2013. I have several times before that date edited some of these posts but that is gonna be the earliest date you'll see.
ANNNNNND one more note: I won't bother saying this if I am just fixing formatting stuff or adding more reviews.

Acronyms, Shortened Words and Interbuttz speaks:

I use some of these and so I should just in case, say some of the more dumb/less known ones I use:

Wrt- With Respect To. I think this is used in math a lot.

Truther- This is a derogatory term for those who believe in conspiracy theories about 911. I don’t think it is all too derogatory nor do I use it as a pejorative, as I explain in this video, but I know others do, so sorry beforehand if I’ve offended you.

CT/ist(s)- Conspiracy Theory/ist(s). If you’ve posted on JREF as long as I have, these words just seem too long after typing them too much.

HD/er/ialist(s)- Holocaust Denier/ialist(s).

KCA- Kalam Cosmological Argument

FTA- Fine-Tuning Argument

MA- Moral Argument(s)

EGH- Evil God Hypothesis, as in, the one proposed by Stephen Law.

ID- Intelligent Design 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be a jerk!