Barney accused Novice of following him to his house
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Getting to the truth of a long-term claim.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8000-can-anyone-beat-barney?page=2&post_number=37
Novice: --> I will ignore all the peculiar theories about me secretly following you around in real life.
Barney: -> No such theories have been presented by anyone other than you. What was pointed to was an online pattern clearly evidenced by your debate comment history.
AND
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8000-can-anyone-beat-barney?page=3&post_number=75
Novice: --> tangents and rants about various personal problems and/or theories about me following him to his house
Barney: -> As I dislike being lied about and I insist you are lying, I'll happily accept a debate challenge from you on if that actually occurred on this site instead of merely inside your imagination.
Novice has stood by his claims as factual for about six months now. The claim is clearly that I have made up stories of him turning into a real life stalker as opposed to an online stalker. He also claims I am too afraid to debate anyone, which is self evidently false so it would be unfair to debate that.
No more dodging and accusing me of dodging (AKA gaslighting 101), it's time for proof to be presented or yield that Novice's claims are B.S.
BoP is of course on pro, as I cannot prove the negative.
If Novice speaks the truth, then this is basically a free win by sharing a simple link to a forum post or debate comment from me which matches the allegation (again, something to the effect of him following me to my house, not merely following me around online; and quoting him does not count). If no such link can be presented, then pro loses.
...
UPDATE:
While this topic was intended for Novice_II (AKA Novice), AustinL0926 agreed to champion him before it turned out that Novice is opposed to Austin seeing the evidence. Therefor, any friend of Novice and/or anyone who believes anything he writes is welcome to accept.
- Can we trust Barney to be honest about his hidden meanings?
- Does his gaslighting of Novice help us reach the truth of this resolution?
“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions” [2].
“The claim is clearly that I have made up stories of him turning into a real life stalker as opposed to an online stalker.” AND “something to the effect of him following me to my house, not merely following me around online”
Thank you for the vote!
Thank you for the debate!
While this wasn't either of our best offerings, it was nice to go head to head with you.
No problem!
-> When did this beef between y’all start?
I don't remember him from DDO, so I'd say shortly after this site started. The earliest negative interaction I can find is in a thread discussing how the site itself could handle forfeitures.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655-auto-loss-for-forfeits?page=1&post_number=17
Oh, and thank you for voting!
The whole debate.:
Pro: I HATE this debate!
Con: ok
Pro: This was rigged against me from the start and I accepted, knowing this! I know people will vote against me but because I’m right, I expect them to take it easy on me!
Con: Extend.
*Con wins.*
😂😂😂
Thank you for voting.
When did this beef between y’all start?
I’ll delay posting my round until Friday. And if Michael gets functionality restored in time, I’ll also gladly change this to unrated if you’d like.
more voters will actually uphold that if the other side is making an abusive truism debate.
I won't say more. I'll let this play out. I can potentially snipe it in Round 2 but would much rather this a proper 3 round debate as intended
Disproving a disproof is not a proof.
It's whatever, the tournament takes priority to me and I ended up swamped with work and stuff
if you redo the challenge or even ask me to do it with me posting rounds first as the instigator, rated, can we please redo that novice challenge. Life got in the way. I am so busy until Friday
Perhaps, I was wrong.
Friendly reminder that your opening argument is due.
Okay, this will be interesting.
The tags are hilarious. 😂😂😂
With less than a week remaining, and Novice committing to his best Brave Sir Robin impersonation, anyone at all is welcome to accept the challenge. If nothing else, you’ll be instantly proven to be a better debater than him.
https://youtu.be/jYFefppqEtE
Looks like Novice will not allow you to see the evidence to be able to stand in for him.
I’ll open the debate up for any friend of his to accept (assuming he has any). Failing that, maybe just maybe there’s someone left who believes there’s any merit to his words; based on the available evidence not even Novice believes anything he writes but I’ve been surprised before.
This one is a matter of intellectual integrity.
Also research and memory are both academic skills. That the scope is narrow, does not change that.
Not all that different from various debates on if God exists. One person presents their evidence, the other argues that the evidence is insufficient.
lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.
lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.
So, basically a free win for anyone that can show proof that you suggested such words?
With the multiple of posts, that would take a quite long time especially if you went through all that only to be proved wrong.
Uhhhhh ok
Novice lacks the ability to separate reality from his imagination. To such ends he keeps following me around proclaiming me a coward running away from him, in addition to the what amounts to bizarre conspiracies about things I’m supposed to have said about him.
You can read the latest iteration at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4207/comments/50853
There was one person who briefly seemed to believe him, and they had agreed to stand in for him.
…
That said, if Novice is of sound mind, then this is basically a free win for him (or anyone who believes him).
Granted, what I expect to happen is he’ll just keep spewing the same mouth diarrhea as before. As has already happened when I soundly mopped the floor with someone standing in for him (multiple times).
what
As you've previous said: "The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened."
Therefore if Novice is neither insane nor a liar, this would be nearly the easiest win you'll ever have (given an argument time of one week for research; I wanted to make it two but the recent update prevents that).
As per definitions, a fitting set for delusions comes from WebMD "Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it can’t tell what’s real from what is imagined. ... But in reality, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated."
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder
We could simplify it down to repeatedly stating things even when contested, which have no basis in measurable reality. Such as how this debate is an example of how I'm too scared to debate Novice, via challenging him to debate (a direct contradiction to objective reality of me repeatedly challenging him to defend his claims about me). This applies to both lying and insanity, via the Lewis Trilemma I already tagged (either Novice is a liar, madman, or telling the truth; your side would be that he's telling the truth, mine would be a disconcert from reality be it liar or madman).
this is mere heresay. unless you can prove that such things did happen, if so then the law should be involved.
this doesnt follow the spirit of a debate, but it does follow the spirit of a criminal trial without deposition and representation or law.
*grabs popcorn*
This site reduced to debating personal dramas.
Define "repeated delusions" and "compulsive lying".
Everything pertinent is public but hopefully he'll agree to your information request...
Otherwise, do you pre-agree that repeated delusions and/or compulsive lying is proof of an unsound mind?
Do you authorize me to share the entirety of our PMs with AustinL0926, to close any information gap?
As you already have access to those, you are of course welcome to rise to the challenge and defend your claims.
Since I don't have the same information that Novice does, I'm afraid I can't accept. However, I offer a counter-challenge if you're interested in standing by your claims: "THBT Novice_II is of sound mind."
The debate is now open.