Bsh1 is a better overall debater then Rational Madman
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1: The BoP is shared.
2: I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point.
3: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.
Bsh1, who is supposedly better than RM, needed Alec to come represent him. Sure, it's possible it's like this:Alec>Bsh1>RMor evenBsh1>Alec>RM
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the descriptions set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
2: https://www.debateart.com/debates/118
3: https://www.debate.org/bsh1/debates/lost/
This was a frustrating debate to read, mainly because it's not clear what the basis is for evaluating who is a better debater. Pro did about as much as possible to shoot himself in the foot on this issue because the debate description yields no standards by which we can assess who is better, and by yielding his first round, he offered Con the opportunity to do so uncontested.
Admittedly, Con doesn't do much better. In fact, Con makes a mistake that dogs him the rest of the debate: he argues that the rating comparison between him and bsh1 constitute a reason to vote for him. Pro jumps on that point, arguing that the ratings comparison on DDO favors bsh1. Con then has to backpedal and argue that it isn't just about the ratings, talking about how those points were acquired and how that affects our perception of who is the better debater. But all of that is deeply subjective, and Con manages to throw out some points that show that bsh1's rating is well-earned on DDO.
My first instinct is to vote based on ratings. It's clear by the end of the debate that both sides regard ratings as important and representative of how good the debaters are, even if there's some nuance and uncertainty to what those scores represent. The problem is that neither side really justified the usage of ratings, and by the end, both sides seem to acknowledge that that nuance is really all there is to the question of what makes the better debater. The numbers themselves fall away, and we're left with the basic question again, to which I have no clear answer. Both sides present reasons to believe them, but not based on any objective measure or clear criterion. Maybe an extra round or two could have made more sense of this, but I'm left looking at the resolution rather than the arguments at the end of the debate, and that's not a good sign. I can't answer that question cleanly or clearly, and despite Pro's desire to have the last word, he does little to clarify how my vote should go. Given that uncertainty, I say that it's unclear who is the better debater, which means my vote defaults to Con.
This was a debate about who was a better debater. There was no mutually agreed standard or benchmark for what constitutes "better". If there was some objective (or at least mutually agreed) standard for what constituted "better" this would have been a positive rather than normative resolution, with the implication that PRO would bear the sole burden of proof. Here, there is neither an objective nor mutually agreed standard/benchmark for what constituted "better". So, the least unfair way to judge the debate is to impute equal burdens of persuasion. This requires that PRO prove that bsh1 is a better debater overall than RM; but would require CON to prove that bsh1 was NOT a better debater than RM. This can be done in two ways; either by some affirmative showing that RM is better than bsh1, or that they are equally skilled overall.
PRO tried to argue that various debate stats from this site and from debate.org showed that bsh1 was a better debater, as bsh1 had won more and lost less debates than RM, among other reasons. Yet, there was no justification for why those numbers/data points meant that bsh1 was a better debater. To paraphrase RM's rebuttal, the fact that more wins are accumulated does not imply that bsh1 was the better debter because bsh1 could have only taken low-risk debates to artificially inflate his debate stats. The stats were the main point of distinction from PRO's perspective between bsh1 and RM. The implication having been undermined, PRO cannot win. Though, RM did not prove he was better than bsh1 either.
1.) debate stats.
Con argues he is better than RM based on his debate statistics. Pro points out cons record on DDO in comparison, which appears to show Bsh clearly having better stats. Con objects and attributes lack of losses to forfeits - then claims he does the same thing.
Pro clearly provided more compelling data here.
2.) Bsh avoids complex debates.
Con argues that winning is inaccurate as it means you avoid complex debates. Pro shows this is false by citing two examples (one later) where bsh has a difficult position defended - and one where con losss a similar debate
3.) RM can do multiple debates at a time.
Pro argues this is more related to free time than skill.
4.) Bsh choses rules to make him win.
Pro argues that the rules actually mean its harder for bsh to win.
5.) bsh beat RM.
Pro argues an example of where bsh and Rn met in debate - and RM lost.
6.) bsh forfeits debates he can’t win.
Con admits he did this, pro argues that as bsh has loses, it can’t be argued that he never loses due to the debate forfeit bug.
The objective weight of examples presented here on multiple counts give this one to pro. Pro offers by far more conclusive and objective means to show who is the better debater.
That’s... not helpful.
Liar
Name who? The styles of debate where this is allowed?
Name them
Just to be clear about this, RM, I actually agree with @Ramshutu on this one. A new point is one that is not directly responsive to an argument given in the previous round. New data, i.e. evidence to support an argument already given, is valid in most forms of debate. You can argue that it's abusive in its own right, and I can understand that view, but there are a lot of people who would take the perspective that it's absolutely fine.
It was BRAND NEW data. He only beat me because only one biased voter voted on the debate on the environment, there's much more to this than you think.
When your opponent uses quotation marks (“like this”) around stuff you said I the previous round, and then provides a reason to discount that information this is called a “rebuttal”, a new point, is where a new piece of information, unrelated to the “ rebuttal” or other “arguments” is added out of the blue.
At the most charitable, he made one new point, and even that is kinda borderline in the context of everything said and didn’t end up changing any of the weighting decision.
There's no point reasoning with you on your votes, I've come to learn that.
His “new points” were rebuttals to your points in the previous round.
You're o ly heating me by not voting but do what you want.
He brought new points when I couldn't respond.
I mean, hell, they are still at it over two weeks later. It's bad enough when some random user pulls a stunt like that, throwing a massive hissy fit because someone voted against them and refused to play by their obscene list of rules. But when moderators, the people who SUPPOSEDLY enforce the rules, are still crying and whining like two-year-olds even weeks later, there is a serious problem. It isn't even enough for just one moderator to do it either, but he has to call in his buddies to try to back him up.
That kind of piss-poor sportsmanship isn't the sign of a good debater, or an emotionally mature person in general. And just because your sixth-grade debate coach told you something doesn't mean people on the internet have to go along with it.
I may have to abstain from voting on this, because my opinion on this subject is just too strong.
I firmly believe the the moderators on this site are absolutely AWFUL debaters, which further hurts their credibility as moderators of a site like this...
Bsh1 and Virtuoso both have really awesome formatting and present amazing opening arguments... but their obsession with the formalities of "professional" debate are their downfall. After the opening volley, they literally waste the entire rest of the debate trying to weasel their way into an "easy" victory by setting up convoluted arguments about how their opponent violated some obscure rule... Such as bsh1 harassing a particular voter for several days straight about how "dropped points automatically become true!!!11" Notice how they are among the users who tack pointless and unenforceable extra rules onto the debate description, because they can't argue without all that stuff backing them up.
And as for rating... I've been told that DDO had serious issues with biased voting and abuse, so that fails as an argument in my eyes. And this site isn't much better, since troll debates contribute to rating and are easy to abuse.
Bottom line; Trying to bury your opponent in needless verbage and then claim victory on the basis of a technicality doesn't make someone a good debater.
doesn't matter, you have provided 0 objective way to measure an overall better debater. I will just let the voters decide, tagged please observe that Alec just countered me with mentioning other stats but offered 0 way to convert that into an actual 'better debater' capacity in any overall, objective sense.
I am aware bsh1 didn't , on that account, win due to the glitch. If you bring his other account that comes into play and you also need to see what i said about the voting moderation during his rise.
Bsh1 is better than RM though. RM basically just debate spams accepting like 6 debates at once having raltar and ramshutu automatically vote in his favor on each one and just other types of unethical shenanigans.
Bsh1 likes to tightly control his debates with unnecessary and lengthy rules. I saw him debate envisage once and because he felt envisage was winning he asked for the debate not to continue. He begged to end the debate because he thought he might lose. He added about 5 new rules to his list after that to make sure he never faces a non canned argument you see basically every other day.
Proof of something
Here is the debate list next to leaderboard:
https://i.imgur.com/7OjWynC.png
I didn't think of it like that. Want more rounds after this if there is not a consensus delivered in 2 rounds?
You want a 2 round debate?! LOL OK
I meant "than" if that is the correct spelling. I think the point of Rule 2 is to basically give me the last word. I plan on waving Round 1 per the rules.
Also, clarify that you meant 'than' not 'then' in the Resolution. I will agree with the new spelling and move on with the proper debate we are having.
In Round 1 Post that Rule 2 was accidentally pasted and I will not troll you by risking posting nothing in Round 3 and saying to give me the conduct point. That's a promise.