Preamble:
In the previous debate on this I opted to stay wholly positive, for sake of variety I am exploring the other path. Therefore, I shall prove my case based on the low quality of the average.
Forfeiture
In the comments my opponent claims to have elected to wait until 30 minutes before their argument was due before beginning to write their case in the evening of November 19th [
1]. They claim to have managed to write an impressive 5710 characters in that time without any major errors. Said document indicates it was ready sometime on the18th, with numerous visitors already [
2]. Nice to know I’m battling an argument by committee, but it’s far from the first time I’ve bested group efforts. However, this is the first instance they’ve claimed to use time travel [
3].
Anyways, an unending series of insults in the comment section, intentionally waiting for very last moments in a two-week window to post, followed by calling me “friend” and begging for are-do on the rematch… Just doesn’t give me any reason to grant the request.
Scope
This is clearly centric to this website, ruling out other websites on which I have participated. Were it not, then my performance outside this site must be considered against the average persons: I used debating to save dozens of lives via educating sick villagers in Iraq how to clean their drinking water against the
wisdom of their elders; saving many of their kids from the 2nd leading cause of death among children worldwide [
4,
5].This has been documented on this site and unchallenged for more than three years (not counting anti-ethical people being offended that more children didn’t die). It is self-evident that the average debater has saved
substantially less lives.
Burden of Proof
As pro initiated the debate and is making the claim against my skill level, primary BoP rests with them. Were we debating from a tabula rasa standard where nothing is pre-known, then the otherwise common knowledge source the leaderboard would decisively win the debate for me, as I’m ranked 5th out of 666 debaters [
6].
Obviously if I am on balance at or belong average in skill, then I am not a good debater.
If my opponent is right, they should cite the offerings of the average debater whom they claim I am equal or less than in skill.
I should note that I am using those who rise to the challenge of formal debates as the population of comparison. Were we to look at all site members, then I am several more magnitudes above the average who never enter the arena. Likewise, were we to entertain using the average person in the world (everyone argues), then their billions of null offerings would be assumed against my cited examples in this debate.
1. The Average Sucks:
Forfeitures
Out of a sample of 666 debaters, roughly half of them full forfeit, and never come back [
6]. Whereas I have zero forfeitures, which already sets me many standard deviations above the arithmetic mean.
Losses
On average, the top 30 debaters only win 82% of the time. The average ranked debater only wins 25% of the time[
7]. Whereas I win 100% of the time, for a ratio of 38:0. Were I average among the top, statistically I would have lost 7 of those 38 debates; and were I average among all debaters, I would have lost 29 of those 38 debates.
Worth Reading
The average debater gives no offering worth reading. Of 2,316 debates, the most anyone has voted for was 986, with second place being a sharp decline to 689. Hundreds of debates go unread and unvoted; with the average debate getting just 2 votes, but mine going as high as 17 votes. Worse, these numbers include full forfeitures, which people need not read before voting.
One of my debates is rated the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) by readers [
8]. While it should be obvious, the average person cannot produce that level of quality, nor reasoning abilities. And as for debates being able to be entertaining hurting some people’s feelings, I also have serious debates on the topic, including one where I handedly defeat the
pro-life belief that women are real estate instead of people [
9].
Changed Opinions
Single issue voters are a problem plaguing society, with pro-life voters being the most notorious [
10]. My debates even turn pro-life voters around; and not just in cases of forfeitures (for which many pro-life voters will still refuse to even consider voting against their bias) [
8].While I do not think this is extraordinary, I expect the average debater has failed to convince anyone to vote against their bias.
Guides
The average debater has written zero useful guides to debating topics; and zero guides period. I have multiple extremely useful ones [
11,
12], which sets me leagues above the average. As evidence of them being useful, the best debaters directly emulate my style, such as the #1 debater on the leaderboards [
13], and who estimates that were we to debate:
“I’d say 9 times in 10, [Barney] would win” [
14].
As per any suggestion that this doesn’t imply debating skill: Debating is a mental sport of persuasion, and I have persuaded the best to emulate me.
Reason
Due to the likelihood that my opponent will try to compare me to the great philosophers throughout history: Aside from being outside the obvious scope of this debate, it’s an invalid comparison. To be good, I only need to be high quality compared to the average. And let’s face it, look back at how many people riot instead of using reason. Hell, look back at the 2020 United Stated presidential election, in which about half the votes went to a perverted, mentally delinquent, evil, old white guy (arguably 98.1% did).
2. Syllogism:
P1 is true by definitions within this debate, even further supported by the limited scale pro insisted upon (Exceptional> Good > Average > Bad).
P2 is shown throughout contention1, as the average debater gives deficient offerings when compared against me.
This is not to say the average is inherently bad; merely that their debating skill leaves much to be desired when compared to members of the top 99th percentile.
oh so accidentally mentioning someone as good when mistaking this site with DDO within an ocean of 7 other examples consists of making an argument? If thats what you consider an argument, then that expalins why your so bad at debating lmao.
Read: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3817-barney-is-not-a-good-debater
If it helps, you can use Ctrl+F to do a word search.
since you relied upon evidence from that site in the previous debate...):
why do you keep saying this bull shit?
I don't need history from DDO to prove I'm good. But for the record, it's damned easy to find (as you should know, since you relied upon evidence from that site in the previous debate...):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160722050304/http://www.debate.org/Ragnar/
Anyways, good luck!
do you think you are good
if yes accept
if no leave
its simple, simpleton.
oh my GODDDDDD do you want to winge any more??????
"I had asked you to define a scale (what percentile of debaters here I need to be better than to be considered good). I am not seeing it."
Yeah guess what, I dont need to make arguments for you. if you want to propose a scale, it will probs be different from mine so why dont we DEBATE (oh wow what a startling surprise!) which scale is better?? if yo think that I "wholly lost on three out of four metrics" then its an easy win for you then right?? if you think your metric is so good then it must be easy for you to propose it and convince voters then.
"I want you to pre-agree what you losing would look like"
if you can prove that you are "good" according to the dictionary definitions (quite a lenient path of victory for you) then you win. how about that. you can pull any argument you want (this or that metric yada yada).
"I am curious why added rule against DDO"
I have no access to it so I can't judge it
I had asked you to define a scale (what percentile of debaters here I need to be better than to be considered good). I am not seeing it. Last time you wholly lost on three out of four metrics you came up with, and the one you didn't wholly lose just put me at 3rd or 4th place out of over 600 debaters. Further, your profile proclaims victory in various debates you lost; so yeah, I want you to pre-agree what you losing would look like.
I am curious why added rule against DDO, when last time your case relied upon evidence from that site.
right well take your time I suppose.
Try to imagine that I have a job. You blowing up my inbox and whining here doesn’t change my time limitations.
There’s literally a two week period to accept challenges, giving ample opportunity to come to agreed terms.
“Is it possible, maybe 1 in 100,000 chance, that Barney doesn't really care about how "good", "vicious" or "competitive" he is?”
Very very unlikely. This is clear through him axcepting the first debate with me (and also that he asks for many changes in definitions to be added to this debate, expressing clear interest), and also . Also, if you look at barney’s record, he mercily snipes noobs who are utterly terrible at debating, indicating that he is interested in farming the superficial elo as opposed to actual debating. If he cared about the art form, he would be like Whiteflames, who does anime debates and takes on good opponents, or like thett3, who despite winning a debate clearly, demanded a draw for his opponent (who was beefing with him) got busy. These are virtuous attributes. Barney? He cares nothing for integrity and farms wins because it sustains his ego.
“If he really is, he would have at least 50 debates by now seeing he has been a user since the very beginning over 3 years ago.”
But then he would end up like oromagi - a laughing stock losing left right and centre.
Is it possible, maybe 1 in 100,000 chance, that Barney doesn't really care about how "good", "vicious" or "competitive" he is? If he really is, he would have at least 50 debates by now seeing he has been a user since the very beginning over 3 years ago. Barney has no moral obligation to argue with you, he just does because he wants.
I wouldn't cram all my attention on every school test, sacrificing meals, sleeps and social interactions(if I have any important ones). If you really think Barney is worse than you, then get a life. Nobody spends all their time debating. Well... maybe I do back then, but doing it long term is unsustainable.
what's the point of asking all the questions then just hiding? all the definitions are done - just take your time whilst you rack your brain and find more excuses.
Why did you ask so many questions and now you aren't accepting? What the hell? were you just waisting my time?
Same time Barney asked you what you thought of him. You just made yourself look stupid.
you are the embodiment of when did I ask.
You are the coward.
Hey, you're the one stipulating this and that and this and that and now you've gone cold feet? What's the point of all the questions then coward.
this is what happens when you dont accept.