Barney is not a good debater
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it
BARNEY is NOT a GOOD DEBATER
As always, any debater who sets a generic, subjective standard without defining that standard deserves to lose her debate outright. There are few move more amateurish then arguing that something is good without defining what good means in context.
PRO makes 3 argument, all quite weak
One: PRO argues falsely that "not good" is a neutral condition that ought to be presumed, shifting to burden of proof to CON. SInce PRO failed to define "good" in the context of this debate this argument must fail. If "good" is defined as, say, most likes in the FORUM section then PRO's argument is obviously false. Worse, PRO rather muddies the question of GOOD vs. BAD by invoking Socratic ethics. If PRO is applying some moral standard here, he fails to make the case. As instigator and maker of a claim that contradicts the debateart.com convention, the Burden of Proof here is 100% PRO's.
Two: PRO argues that Barney lacks the traits of a good debater but the only trait PRO mentions is analysis and instantly offers that he is incapable of making such an argument. PRO argues that win/lose record is an example of a debater's trait but this is obviously false. By definition, debaters have little influence over their win/lose and so that record can't be ascribed to debaters as a trait. We need only look at the top ten win/lose records on this site and note that there are 3 or 4 debaters found there that couldn't format a proper syllogism if their life depended on it to understand that win/lose records are political artifacts with no connection to qualities or traits or performance or conduct of individual debaters.
Three: PRO argues that nobody on this site is a good debater when compared to debaters outside of this site. Unfortunately, PRO has forgotten the one rule he set for this debate which was that "we only consider debateart .com" Having violated his own single rule, PRO invalidates this argument and makes an excellent case for losing this debate outright just on rules violation
CON starts with two arguments based on win/lose records which I have already stated are objectively non-persuasive. There is no relationship between the quality of debaters on this site and win/lose records.
CON's third argument finally begins to adress the quality of a "good" debate- public recognition, dodging traps, overcoming truisms, meme-worthiness. I think there plenty more important qualities but CON goes way ahead here by defining a standard.
In rebuttals, CON correctly calls out PRO on his subjective standard and gives one good example of the unreliability of win/lose records for analyzing debate quality. CON refutes PRO's lame 'analysis' argument by providing one example debate that definitely demonstrates some skill in analysis. CON correctly call out PRO for failing to abide by his own rule setting the scope of this debate.
In ROUND2, PRO deceptively pretends that he did not limit the scope of this debate to debateart.com, earning a lost point for conduct.
PRO explodes his already failed second argument by confirming that win/lose/leaderboard is no reflection of quality. PRO entirely undermines the majority of his ROUND 1 here.
PRO then undermines his undermining by further relying on win/lose to counter CON's examples of quality debating. PRO's failure to define GOOD up front effectively give him no ground against CON's very reasonable examples of quality. PRO can't make up his mind from one paragraph to the next whether win/lose records is an indication of quality.
CON quite rightly objects to PRO wild inconsistencies regarding scope and win/lose record. PRO correctly stands by his example of quality in his debate style as entirely unrefuted (mostly because PRO seems to feel no obligation to define some objective standard for quality.
From first to last, PRO fails to erect any rhetorical goalpost for his assertions,fails to set an objective standard for "good," and consistently contradicts and undermines the argument he devoted all of his energy to in ROUND1- comparative win/lose.
PRO never really built a substantial case on any particular and made CON's job pretty easy here. ARGUMENTS to CON
CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater.
RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UvsRs2_mNCWYsLy5ufZoAGvduqCEq9Je3Xc2rTU3bng/edit?usp=sharing
TL;DR: Con effectively utilized the absence of thresholds from Pro's arguments, as well as points that Pro either dropped entirely or punted to Con early, to establish that he at least meets some criteria for what Pro considers to be a good debater. Since Pro didn't include offense in his argument (e.g. why Barney is a bad debater), largely just undermining the question or arguing that he can't demonstrated that he is, winning on any of these points was sufficient to net Con the debate. Con wins on some of them, so I vote Con.
RFD in comments.
I just want to open by saying that I have absolutely nothing against either debates and that particularly for Barney, I have nothing but respect for the contributions you have made in this site. Of course, debates ought not be awarded to who we respect, but rather who articulated better arguments.
Burden:
From the get go Vici establishes the Chaos state as the proof for a burden shift towards his opposition. For Barney to accept this is an absolutely terrible decision . It means that I must enter the debate judging Barney as if he were a new user, and then assessing whether the proofs he provides are sufficient in elevating him to "good" status (they could have just cited Wikipedia and asserted that Vici was the claim maker and quite convincingly threw the burden back). Even though a lot of us see Barney as "good", it is actually very difficult to establish what qualities contribute to "good" in a quantitative manner in the given character limit.
Metrics:
Vici provides the combined record analyses as his means for judging whether a debater is good, whilst taking note to emphasise why it is superior to the traditional elo and leaderboard system - "more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people". I find this system problematic, but nonetheless far more capable than the traditional system. Note that if this argument is successful, two of Barney's contentions are nullified. Barney has some scattered rebuttals - he says that Vici cites the later records of his opponents rather than what they were, but Vici's reply of the boxer seems sufficient to me.
The "controversial" rule in the descriptions:
I was drawn to this debate quite frankly because of the abhorrent quality of the other votes (sorry), especially the ones which deducted arguments on the basis of the alleged "rule" in the description. This is entirely unconvincing. First, from a logical standpoint, Vici provides sound reason as to why we ought accept universal definitions with the example of the public speaker - that if someone asks "are you a good speaker, answer whilst only considering X website", it is clear that "consider" implies that we ought derive sources from only the website as opposed to any other source, not that we ought to define the term "'speaker". Obviously, all definitions are outside of this site (no such thing as a debateart owned definition) so it is entirely logical to derive definitions from a dictionary. Those who argue that "Vici must prove that Barney is a not good debater within the standards of this site" have terribly misunderstood the definition of "debater" and ought to bear the burden of conjuring any source which indicates that "good debater" refers explicitly to this narrow definition. Secondly, from just an emotional intelligence perspective, when Vici says "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it" it is clear that they mean that we ought derive sources, as debate.org was mentioned as a prohibited (clearly indicating that Barney's record from there cannot be utilised).
Overall arguments:
The argument comes down to Vici's metric, which acts as a preemptive rebuttal to Barney's entire case. Barney's refutations of it were not sufficient and amounted to poking holes at it instead of attacking it's essence. Furthermore, that Barney took up the entire burden meant that even if Vici's metric was disproved, he would be left at square one, for it is his burden to build bottom up a case why he is good (simply refuting the metric would have left him as the status quo 1500 debater). I mean this with absolutely zero disrespect, but in my opinion, this is a clear cut argument point allocation to Vici from me.
Source:
Equal. That Barney sites common sense claims (his profile, the leaderboard) does not constitute a point awarded.
Pro's case relied entirely upon one core tenet:
That defeating and competing with other good opponents (and, of course, winning often enough when doing so) defines a good (or better than good) debater.
Con truly rebuts this in Round 2 because he notes that whtieflame and bones themselves are good rating but I find this flawed.
Instead, using the same logic of Con's Round 2 Kritik, I notice that when Pro says whiteflame defeated good debaters and also says that Bones did, the debaters they defeated are called 'good' for no reason other than rating.
Another issue is scope of the debate. Pro says in the description, written by himself, that this is only about DART yet uses DDO to regard Tejretics as a good opponent for whiteflame to have defeated and starts an entire contention that cuts his case in half, slaughtering the first contention in its entirety.
If nobody on DART is a good debater relative to world debaters, then why the hell did Pro juxtapose Barney's noobsniping against the fact that whiteflame and Bones defeated good debaters?
The case of Pro actually was a flawed attenpt at a pincer BoP trap. I myself pioneered this idea but I do not care about that now. A pincer BoP is a phrase I coined to describe a strategy of having 1 or 2 contentions that actually directly cannot be true if another is true (from the same side).
This works well when the opponent has to clearly exert characters and energy to defeat them, since it blackmails the opponent to need to build and defend two independent coubtercases on top of their constructive. Conversely, this works terribly and backfires if it actually directly enables the opponent to reverse said pincer by dismissing one with the other in an immediate manner. It takes finesse to pull off and close attention to how direct vs indirect the contradiction is for a voter and opponent to grasp.
Barney's case is that his winrate is higher than other high-rated debaters at the tier he is and that Pro is completely subjectively drawing differentiation between good vs mediocre debaters that are ranked high based on if he deems the opponents of debaters good or not, making the entire thing subjective and thus not objective.
Debate description reads: "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it"
All of Con's arguments are based on statistics gathered on the DART site. They unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description. Arguments to Con
Con provides the most valuable sources, as well as an impressive amount of BTS math on his own rankings, they cover the majority of his claims regarding different statistics on DART, as well as voting outcomes, he also provides definitions for the relevant topics of statistics and logical fallacies. Pro doesn't completely fail to provide sources, but a lot of the things he says are completely without a source, such as the first paragraph about Plato and Chaotic states, the list of other "good debaters" and who they have beaten. Sources to Con
S&G are equal. I had no difficulty reading/understanding either argument, nor did I notice any egregious errors. Tied.
I was tempted to take conduct points from Pro as I find the premise of the argument itself disrespectful, but I suspect that it violates the voting policy somehow, and anyway, he was civil during the debate itself.
As a critical note I wish someone had taken the time to define "good" in this debate. It was danced around very loosely and while I feel the arguments themselves were unambiguous, it was left to the voter to decide how they should evaluate the arguments in terms of the claim itself. RM or Intelligence (as well as myself) would almost definitely not have left this unaddressed, and I personally feel the debate suffers for it.
ARGUMENTS:
According to the debate description, we are considering DebateArt as the criteria. So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description. CON structured his argument based on the statistical average of the leaderboard and the existence of the Hall of Fame, which are two metrics that DebateArt explicitly uses to rank debaters and good debates. This means that CON better followed the debate's structure than PRO and therefore has won the debate. The question was never "is Barney and OBJECTIVELY good debater" (according to the description), but if Barney's performance on DebateArt is good, since the description blatantly states that DebateArt will be considered.
SOURCES:
CON and PRO both had reliable sources, but CON cited significantly more reliable sources than PRO over the course of the debate. The sheer volume of citations back to previous debates and profiles proving Barney's performance on DebateArt went unmatched by PRO, who relied on a cursory analysis that he/she did not reveal to the general public and only included a laundry list of people PRO considered "good" based on his/her unshared spreadsheet.
SPELLING AND GRAMMAR:
Both sides had typos and basic grammar errors. But none of these errors were able to sufficiently impede comprehension, so both are tied in regard to this score.
CONDUCT:
Both were equally respectful and the dialogue was open and barely hostile.
Now that voting has closed... Regarding your vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3817/comment-links/47204
> The only argument [for analysis] he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good".
This misunderstanding speaks of either not understanding how to weigh arguments against each other (Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole), and/or having not read the majority of the debate (seriously, do a word search for "analy"). The analysis abilities were showcased throughout the round, with the single paragraph you read there even pointing that out before highlighting two extra proofs (one of which contextually used pro's own evidence against them).
> pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo...
This would be an /ok/ assessment of a single contention, if contentions exist wholly in isolation.
> very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit
This is showing an opinion not supported with what was presented in the debate. I suggest doing a word search for "forfeit" and rereading the relevant paragraphs. Pro's line of reasoning even opened up that according to their metric defeating Oromagi might mean someone is bad at debating based on unknown future performance (which was the key indicator that various people with positive win records I defeated meant I'm actually somehow bad). Even then, it's ok if you buy that, but why it wholly overrides less subjective measurements offered should be explained.
...
From the voting policy, right away there's the highlight "Strive to be fair." No one is going to think you're doing that, if you don't give at least a passing review of their core contentions (especially when they're laid out and numbered so clearly).
Thank you for voting, and for giving such good feedback as to the weaknesses of my case.
Vici spends 24+ hours of their time trying to get Barney's attention and proceeds to accuse the latter of seeking validation.
Ironic.
"If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?""
blah blah blah blah rubbish rubbish I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE OK. STOP TRYING TO GET VALIDATION. "yada yada Im a soldier this that" bro this is a debating website I dont care ok?
"As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours,"
yup if you think it was "key" then it clearly implies that you yourself are missing key parts of your brain. It is neither proportionally nor substantially "key".
"CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater."
yup - and this is further proof that you lack any logic. absolute monstrosity. no wonder you lost you novice.
If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?"
As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours, and then when I listed mine you dropped the point.
this ongoing battle is hilarious
I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children
blah blah blah blah why do you keep trying to pull at heartstrings???? "wah wah im so great I saved kids" buddy this is nothing about debating ok? this is the embodiment of "no body asked".
Thank you for the extremely detailed vote.
I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children. But that's my ethical bias showing itself.
This debate has been mentioned in the latest edition of the DART Bard. Read it here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8210-dart-bard-6th-edition-midterms-11-7-2022
Vici has demanded a rematch, and I've accepted. It can be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3865-barney-is-not-a-good-debater-finale-atbarney
If in doubt, I advise simply not reading commentary before voting.
Personally, I try to keep my comments on my own active debates minimal to avoid risk the of unduly swaying potential voters.
> His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping
There was an implied accusation (without evidence), that my win record was from noob sniping. Therefore I offered additional evidence on the matter to to remove any sliver of doubt that it was non-sequitur. Throughout the debate you can see a consistent theme when it comes to which side has evidence to raise ideas above being hollow assertions.
As for me not showing enough of my analysis skills: What better analysis was shown from any other debater? Particularly the average debater whom I am equal or less than?
RFD: You know, I must have confused my notes when I wrote down Con had the analysis argument be more thorough, I thought he had that but that might have been in the comments. The only argument he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good". In any case, the rest of my analysis stands, and I'm not completely sure con has enough evidence here to win.
pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo. He tried to show his enemy was serious and good in the fetus USD debate, but there is a mere assertion so I can’t really buy it just like that. The other debates also seemed like weak assertions since he’s just tossing out ideas with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument. If Con didn't take BOP, I probably would've left a tie or even Con win.
If you are interested, I would be happy to engage with you in a debate like this, not out of bad blood or anything personal, but because I think this sort of debate is actually very interesting and unlike anything I have ever participated in. Although, i do understand if you are drained on proving that you are good.
IMO the debate showed clearly that the average debater would forfeit at least half of those. But that is just me nitpicking. If the comparative evidence did not suggest to you I'm at least good, as much as I disagree, the fault lies with me for not using enough evidence.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I want to make clear that I don’t think you are a mere 1500 debater - just that you adopted the onus to prove that your resume would elevate anyone at that level to “good” (status quo is that you are 1500). You provided four debate examples to lift yourself out of the status quo, and despite Vici providing compelling refutations for them (that the oppositions are weak, that comedic debates are not indicative of a good debater), it is also quite reasonably argued that even if the debates were extraordinary, there is very little one can do to elevate themself into “good” level in such a small amount of debates. For the examples you provided, I had to think to myself “if a new no profile user came along and performed as you did in them, would I consider them good?” and the answer is no.
Thank you for voting.
I accepted BoP even while it traditionally rests on pro, as I did not want to engage in a debate over BoP instead of comparative evidence; especially not when there are already too few characters to fit said evidence in. Regardless, I believe I utilized her own words on it well, since no better analysis was shown in any area by any other debater, particularly not outside this site. From the metric of outside this site, what better accomplishments than mine were cited?
As for considering me to me a mere 1500 ELO level debater, I believe my arguments overly refuted that.
As for her calculation, I do not think I am great under it, as much as even it shows me to be vastly superior to the average debater (remember, she insists forfeiting counts as debating).
The description to me doesn't come across as a rule so much as a musing to merely fill space so the debate could be started
I think B is now your daddy and you are the cheeky son of a B.
What do you think of how I convincingly refuted that when I said
B quite cheekily states the following: I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site.
Do you think this is fair? I would love a vote
If you hadn't included that rule in the description, I would have voted for you, hands down.
"I am open to this idea."
If you were really open to it, you would have challenged Barney by now and asked him to pick a topic and asked whiteflame if he would like to be a judge. But since you did neither, you aren't really open to the idea.
In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.
nope, instead of using "in other words" inference which you are clearly cognitively unable to apply, how about you read what I say - I am open to this idea.
but if you wish for me to be explicit, yes I will beat Barney in any debate which fairly gives participants an even footing.
"I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious."
In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.
" Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self."
I'm sorry that you were dropped at birth, but could you tell me what part of " I am open to this idea" do you not understand. I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious., hence him not debating say novice in a fair contest.
I would not draw attention to him, I have come to find out that he thrives off it. That is to say, I am not interested in feeding the troll any longer. My interest only extends to debating, and if all I am going to get is dodges and incoherent rambles, even solely interacting becomes a waste of time.
Oof. Barney you gonna take that?
Vici did not appear to be backing out, but seems to be stating that Barney would be too scared to even accept the challenge, so there is no point in wasting such time/giving him the attention. This is something I can generally agree with as someone Barney is scared of debating.
So... You guys gonna debate or what? Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self.
shiver me timbers a "few" challenges over "the years"? How very prolific!
"Plus since you believe online debating does not count"
I do
While not often, I've had a few open challenges over the years. Had you done your research on me, you'd know that.
Plus since you believe online debating does not count; how the eff do you imagine I sniped my debate opponents in Iraq?
to be fair, he defeated me in an abortion debate where I played devil's advocate, and I think I'm half decent. So there is that...
sorry, there's no way barney would ever challenge me in a legit debate. he just snipes opponents and honestly, as is evident in my argument, he will only debate people who knows he can beat. So, although I am open to this idea, this fair notion for a random topic, I don't think barney would ever be up for anything so unpredictable.
I think the only way to settle this if for the two of you to debate another topic and you have whiteflame as the judicial vote.
That way it will be completely fair. Whiteflame votes because he is the one moderating the votes to this debate so he is the most knowledgeable on how to vote properly, and that way it is a completely fair debate to both of you. If Barney wins, he is a better debater than you. If you win, then you are a better debater than Barney.
The topic can also be chosen completely at random. There's websites that do that sort of thing. Or a third party could choose the topic for both of you.
Probably not, I'm afraid. I don't have much motivation to write a detailed vote. When the voting is greatly in favor of one side, that motivation drops to near zero.
A good argumentation tactic is to imagine someone agrees with the other side, and then build a case that casts doubt upon the core tenets of that agreement. Hence why I engaged with the "No one on this site is a good debater" line of argument with a Catch-22.
Anyways, I hope you'll take the time to vote.
"so again to your question, I would like a good vote, but if it is a good vote, then it will be in favour for me. Im really trying not to be arrogant, but this is how I see it. I see zero way Barney won that one."
This is the best quote I've seen here in a while. The complete inability to even imagine how someone could disagree is staggering, but yet incredibly common.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter appears to spend a large portion of their RFD explaining how they would run an argument differently from Pro, they do nonetheless provide specific analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and how that affects their decision. As with previous RFDs, the voter does not need to go into detail about how each point from the debaters does or doesn't work. So long as the voter provides feedback that applies to many or all of the arguments presented by each side, that is sufficient.
**************************************************
" note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi"
self entitlement at it's finest because some people vote against you."
With all the hype you've raised for this debate, I'm surprised you have not nominated it for the Hall of Fame.
Your "small kritik" was the only argument that addressed Barney's, and since Barney's argument satisfied BoP on its own, only arguments that countered it are worth considering.
has whiteflame defeated good debater YES OR NO.
Based on the framework and arguments in the debate, Pro has not explained how any of their opponents are good and argues nobody on DART is truly good relative to all world debaters. Therefore NO.
has barney defeated good debaters YES OR NO
NO by the same logic.
Feels like you've got a different perception of what is "the HEART of" the argument in this debate. Voters are allowed to make that determination for themselves. That doesn't mean they can dismiss your case wholesale without explanation, but it does mean that they have some leeway when it comes to evaluation of what arguments matter in a debate and why. K_Michael gave you a specific reason why he believes your arguments don't work. Though he doesn't outright point to two of your arguments, he still gives reasoning for why they would not matter in this debate: because of what is written in the description. You clearly argued against that perception, but just because you argued it doesn't mean that that argument must be a substantial factor in a voter's decision, particularly if they didn't find it compelling.
As for sources, I really don't understand your point. Both sides used common knowledge sources. K_Michael pointed to a source from Barney that is not common knowledge and required more digging into the data. Unless you have reason to believe that source of yours should be considered similarly potent, I don't think this is responsive to his reasoning.
all that whiteflame and Bones defeated are not good.
look ill give it to you easier. please just yes or no
has whiteflames defeated good debater YES OR NO.
has barney defeated good debaters YES OR NO.
WHY DOES EVERYONE TALK ABOUT THE SMALL KRITIK I TALKED ABOUT. WHY DONT YOU TALK ABOUT THE MAIN ARGUMENT, THAT IS THE ACTUAL MEEEETTRIICCCC OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD DEBATER??? you are clearly voting with preconceived ideals.
Your entire argument 3, which is actually argument 2 as BoP assignment isn't an argument, violated the prior one by saying all that whiteflame and Bones defeated are not good. You are not even mentally taking in what I am typing, you are replying only to attack and defend. Stop and take in what I say.
"Furthermore, Barney as Ragnar on DDO"
blah blah ddo talk.
"In proving they are good, you then proved that Barney is good on the same metric"
yup I said this preemptively in round 1.
It isn't perfect, but the probabilities of noob sniping is much less in the bare record (more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people)
I know its not perfect, but it sure as hell is BETTER when COMPARED to the metric barney uses.
I meant the DDO goat reference and his entire second contention blatantly violated his own thesis and its scope.
BoP isn't a contention so by second I mean what he calls 3.
Oh and thanks for voting.
I did not even realize the Tejretics victory was back on DDO. I did find the reference to him as a DDO goat as odd considering the no DDO rule; but I ran out of characters to address that.
> That word is spelled rationale not rational, FYI.
Thank you for that correction.