The 3 people in the top 5 who are undefeated should debate each other.

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 85
#61
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Among the pile of horseshit you just typed, this was the highlight:

I am more than willing to help completely deconstruct your debates with you, and break down the specific errors you made and explain how you can improve. Everyone here would be. I think that may be the best step for you to appreciate the type of errors you are making -  but first you need to accept that you are making them.
Sounds like a Priest saying first you have to believe in Jesus as the son of God, then you'll find out he is real.
#62
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Sounds like a Priest saying first you have to believe in Jesus as the son of God, then you'll find out he is real.
You often make key logical errors in your debates, and you repeat them over and over again. You rely too much on stream of consciousness which is often barely legible and obfuscates your point to the point of irrelevance. You fixate on what you think your opponent may say next rather than focusing on what they say relevant to the resolution, and focusing on that: you have often focused on bizarre tangents and side-tracks but ignore the most obvious problems and issues at hand. You often lose track of the resolution, or the argument; and are rarely able to weight or contrast your point to an opponent for any policy debates you have. Worst of all - you also don't seem to learn that launching into an obtuse semantic battle with someone who is arguing an obvious resolution in good faith is almost invariably going to lead to you losing: which is odd for someone in the top 300,00z

The failures here are all your own, and I am quite willing (and generally try on my RfD), to try and help you through the argument process, but at some point I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink. I would take a read of Ragnars style guide and his debating guide once he’s updated it; many of your errors are fairly typical of the average debater here, and I genuinely think that it will help you.


#63
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
No, the failures are not all my own. I do believe my main failure was having debates at all until the voter base grew to be more than your abusive, grudge-bearing self.

Other than that, I've been brilliant as fuck as both a site user and debater so far, thanks for the pointless feedback. When you say 'irrelevant to the resolution' what you always mean is 'I don't understand the point'. I have noticed this by being patient and hearing you fully elaborate on things like this in the past, it ends at 'it's shit because I say it's shit' each and every time. :)
#64
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
How about you speak about Religion with Ragnar? 
#65
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Like I showed in the debate, you don’t appear to be able to accept any criticism from anyone; your issue with me isnot that I vote unfairly, but really that I vote more. You’ve accused the overwhelming majority of individuals who have voted against you prior to our debate of not understanding your position, or being terrible voters.

Obviously, one of the main issues is that when we debate, we always think our own arguments are phenomenal, and unbeatable. When someone doesn’t agree with you, you’re comparing a voter who read what you wrote vs the person in the world who best understands your argument, and is always 100% on your side. It’s easy for many individuals to presume the issue is solely with the voter and not with the arguments because, well, your brain tells you that they’re fantastic. 

I am unable to test your metacognition, but this type of issue is the inherent source of the Dunning Kruger Effect, and why political extremists are unable to recognize their own errors. 

So, as you seem to object: I’ll give you an example of your Automomous vehicles issue. Let’s ignore the indesciphedable language; there were obvious and clear benefits of moving to autonomous vehicles. 

To fight this, a “who could be blamed if there’s an accident” is a bad argument - as we currently already have major industries that face similar issues, and they are able to overcome the issues. 

Likewise the idea that it’s taking jobs is bad too, any technology improvement does this.

Your opponent had the higher ground - because your opponent framed the technology was simply an extension of existing technology and the same as other technological developments in the past -  and you charged up and tried to fight to that hill by picking issues that would largely be problems with existing technology. The result was then mostly an inevitable matter of record - as Oromagi clearly knew his stuff.

This combined with you going off on the pointless Game theory rabbit hole, bizarre nonsense about blackmail, and your reliance on subjective opinion vs Oromagi presenting facts, is why you lost that one. 

Even in your recent abortion debate - You were faced with an opponent who asked where in the constitution does it say abortion is a right: you could have cited that the Supreme Court is afforded the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and did so in this case under the grounds that woman’s control over their own body is protected by the right to privacy, and that the constitution explicitly states that no rights are abridged if not enumerated. Like three sentences - boom, win.  Instead your approach was to launch a mostly nonsensical  tactic of presenting  your opinion of what the theme of the constituent was; which is in no way shape or form bore any relation to justifying why the specific text or legal aplication of constitution legally allows for abortion.

This is what I mean by errors: I think you need to recognize these failures rather than attribute them being called out to malfeasance.



#66
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Like I showed in the debate, you don’t appear to be able to accept any criticism from anyone;
I know exactly what dunning kruger is and on my rise as a player of many games from Poker to League of Legends to Debating all the way through to getting by with people socially, I learned a lot about it. I am immune to Dunning-Kruger now (not naturally, but self-taught) because I derive my confidence at something from progress over time. I do not need to prove a thing to you about it, I know what precisely it is to measure progress and admit when I'm moving down and/or up, objectively at the art and science of a given skill.
your issue with me is not that I vote unfairly, but really that I vote more.
These are not mutually exclusive.
You’ve accused the overwhelming majority of individuals who have voted against you prior to our debate of not understanding your position, or being terrible voters.
That is true, I will admit that most humans are terrible comprehenders of logic but I struggle to understand why when I put extra effort into making an airtight case I was told I gish gallop'd when that was literally the singular best constructed debate on this entire website (my opponent had no way to win no matter what).

Obviously, one of the main issues is that when we debate, we always think our own arguments are phenomenal, and unbeatable.
You are not me. I know what you are referring to and most people do indeed either suffer from that or the opposite; infinite humility and fear. I suffer from neither. I think thoroughly through what the opponent can run via logic paths (which are things you need my brain or somethign similar to it to truly comprehend) and I spot traps, dead-ends, ways to loosen an otherwise airtight logic-chain etc. If you are familiar with computer programming and/or building to a high enough level, you will have come across logic pathing but it doesn't explain how to translate that into real-life situations where not everything is a clear '1' or '0'. 

The only time I slipped up was with blamonkey because I genuinely didn't think about the idea that juries don't represent the norm. He is wrong but I didn't realise how difficult it is to prove.

When someone doesn’t agree with you, you’re comparing a voter who read what you wrote vs the person in the world who best understands your argument, and is always 100% on your side. It’s easy for many individuals to presume the issue is solely with the voter and not with the arguments because, well, your brain tells you that they’re fantastic.
My brain doesn't tell me that my arguments are fantastic, my comprehension of what my opponent presented vs mine and how to render the resolution true are how I conclude it.

I am unable to test your metacognition, but this type of issue is the inherent source of the Dunning Kruger Effect, and why political extremists are unable to recognize their own errors.
Yeah, do you know the biggest sufferers from DK are those who accuse everyone else of it? Think about it, who is the worst sufferer of delusion? It's the one saying everyone is deluded about their own ability no matter what.

So, as you seem to object: I’ll give you an example of your Automomous vehicles issue. Let’s ignore the indesciphedable language; there were obvious and clear benefits of moving to autonomous vehicles.
Lol! obvious? Is that tabula rasa? Obvious because you said it's obvious, indecipherable because you can't decipher it, yeah okay.
To fight this, a “who could be blamed if there’s an accident” is a bad argument
Bad... What do you mean by bad? Bad because you say it's bad? 
- as we currently already have major industries that face similar issues, and they are able to overcome the issues.
Oromagi never said that. You came up with your own rebuttal there.


#67
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11

Likewise the idea that it’s taking jobs is bad too, any technology improvement does this.
I didn't say that, even once. Nice assuming I'd take the standard route.
 
Your opponent had the higher ground
Do you like to invent terms and concepts in debating as you go along? 
- because your opponent framed the technology was simply an extension of existing technology and the same as other technological developments in the past - 
Which I disproved in the entire debate, explaining just how unique this case is.
and you charged up and tried to fight to that hill by picking issues that would largely be problems with existing technology. The result was then mostly an inevitable matter of record - as Oromagi clearly knew his stuff.
Such as? Logic pathing of robots reaching a stage of predicting human though process and behaviour? Or what? Did you even read my Rounds past R1? I don't think so.

"Oromagi clearly knew this stuff" what stuff? did you even read a single word that I wrote?

This combined with you going off on the pointless Game theory rabbit hole, bizarre nonsense about blackmail, and your reliance on subjective opinion vs Oromagi presenting facts, is why you lost that one.
That is the most important point of the entire debate. That is why this is so different to other technological developments so far, the very thing you said I had to address.

Even in your recent abortion debate - You were faced with an opponent who asked where in the constitution does it say abortion is a right: you could have cited that the Supreme Court is afforded the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and did so in this case under the grounds that woman’s control over their own body is protected by the right to privacy, and that the constitution explicitly states that no rights are abridged if not enumerated. Like three sentences - boom, win.  Instead your approach was to launch a mostly nonsensical  tactic of presenting  your opinion of what the theme of the constituent was; which is in no way shape or form bore any relation to justifying why the specific text or legal aplication of constitution legally allows for abortion.
do you like rebuking my points? You can't come up with your own arguments or 'the argument I should have used instead' as a reason to vote against me, not ever.

This is what I mean by errors: I think you need to recognize these failures rather than attribute them being called out to malfeasance.
What errors are you referring to? I am yet to see one.



#68
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
At this point, I’ll just refer you to my RfD, and the debate.

If you don’t grasp his illegible 100 word long sentences presented in incoherent walls of text that is bordering on incomprehensible for the entire debate doesn’t land you a violation for S&G - then there is no number of posts I can make here that can possible correct your faulty thinking on this.

Likewise, as we’ve now gone dozens of posts here, on that debate: and an entire new debate which you capitulated; without you being able to give one clear example of a major argument I didn’t portray accurately, or deliberately ignored: that wasn’t refuted - plane as day - by specific lines and clearly reasoned explanation slap bang in the RFD.

I’m sorry you don’t seem capable of recognizing your own failures. But right now I’m spelling out literally and objectively what your problem is, and what happened to you specifically - I don’t think you’re smart enough to recognize failures in your own reasoning even if I were to spend another year posting in this thread trying to explain them.

Like I said in the debate, in the round right before you capitulated, and gave up:

You made a single claim about what that RfD was wrong: “

RM claims that I ignored a point he made in R4. In reality the part of the RFD wasn’t referring to this argument, but another related argument. RM has no response - and he simply asserts this claim a second time in the previous round (he could have quoted other examples throughout the debate where he made this argument and I hadn’t addressed it)”

This is all just manufactured outrage






#69
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
If you don’t grasp his illegible 100 word long sentences presented in incoherent walls of text that is bordering on incomprehensible for the entire debate doesn’t land you a violation for S&G - then there is no number of posts I can make here that can possible correct your faulty thinking on this.

You should just have said this and shut the fuck up. You can't post a single coherent reason why you voted against me in almost any debate where you did vote against me. You slip past a broken system that allows bullshit votes to pass and defend against it by preying on easy opponents or taking very mainstream sides and playing to the heartstrings of an impotent voter-base by mimicking popular stances and takes on things. 

You wouldn't stand a single chance against me in a debate where actual logic was how we determined the winner.
#70
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I’m sorry you don’t seem capable of recognizing your own failures. But right now I’m spelling out literally and objectively what your problem is, and what happened to you specifically - I don’t think you’re smart enough to recognize failures in your own reasoning even if I were to spend another year posting in this thread trying to explain them.
Hahaha, I can recognise my failures just fine. Can you recognise yours?
#71
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
RM claims that I ignored a point he made in R4. In reality the part of the RFD wasn’t referring to this argument, but another related argument. RM has no response - and he simply asserts this claim a second time in the previous round (he could have quoted other examples throughout the debate where he made this argument and I hadn’t addressed it)”

You actually named one of the biggest points; game theory. You said it was a tangent but it was the most fundamental element to explaining how different this is to other technological advancements so far and why it will snowball out of control. You named it for me, I didn't have to bring it up.
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
You sit there looking down at me cackling with superiority but in time I will show you who is unbreakable and who was all along nothing but a hypocrite who preyed on weak debaters and ran like a pussy cat around the other big beasts of the jungle. I have a 40% winrate against them? You have a 0% because the debate against me wasn't a real debate, it was you pandering to the masses where anything I prove was a wrong reason to vote becomes you 'honestly being that deluded'.
#73
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I have been through much worse than this in life, you're just unusual as you have such a high percentage of influence around here for now. Patience will be my friend here.

#74
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
How about you speak about Religion with Ragnar?
#75
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
@RM: I refer you to both my RfD and the debate we had. I don’t believe you will be able to grasp that you’re arguments are not as amazing as you claimed, leave alone grasp why even if I spent the next thousand posts trying to explain it.

Given you’re propensity for saying things that are objectively in true - that I vote down people at the same ranking as me (objectively false), that you explained why Daylight savings is anachronistic (you didn’t anywhere), that I make semantic arguments against new members (objectively false - that’s you), and any number of other claims - I’m not going to go back and forth and entertain this nonsense  any further.

Just so we are clear however; so you’re not subsequently disappointed:

When you, or anyone, launches into a bad faith semantic argument against an opponent who appears to be new and arguing in good faith and in which the resolution appears clear - I’m almost certainly going to award arguments and conduct against whoever does that..





#76
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
@RM: I refer you to both my RfD and the debate we had. I don’t believe you will be able to grasp that you’re arguments are not as amazing as you claimed, leave alone grasp why even if I spent the next thousand posts trying to explain it.
"will be able to"
"even if I"
Just do it, clear it up for everyone.

Given you’re propensity for saying things that are objectively in true - that I vote down people at the same ranking as me (objectively false), that you explained why Daylight savings is anachronistic (you didn’t anywhere)
I could have done it in a more detailed way, that would be gish gallop and you'd vote against me for that. :) 

I did, nonetheless, do precisely this in the least effort needed in my R2 and R3. 
#77
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Your round 2 and 3 were all about your definition of “relevance”, at no point, in any way shape or form did you at any point explain any benefits or or applicability to modern life of DST. You did not explain why - even though it was invented in the last for issues of the past, it has benefit and usage today.

I would appreciate that if you make accusations, you don’t pepper it without objectively false statements. All of the items I listed above are things you claimed, that contradict objectively verifiable fact.








#78
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I literally already did it, in the debate that I won. Where I gave you the opportunity to list the specific issues and specific details of what you felt was dishonest. All I got was an angry accusation that I was unfair for penalizing you for S&G, and a claim based on you not understanding the RfD.

When you have no details and no specifies: that out of 100+ votes you cannot pinpoint a single specific argument I missed, misrepresented or misportrayed: and when given the platform to voice your objections, all you could come up with, were literally a half dozen points where you objectively misrepresented or misunderstood my RfD.

Feel free to challenge me on a debate on this - at least that way I will earn ELO for my time

#79
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I've given example after example.

#80
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You'll win the debate as you understand normie idiots better than I do. so you use terms like 'obviously nonsense' and 'bad faith' and they get all weak inside.
#81
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
You gave multiple examples in the debate  - all shown to be clear and unambiguous misrepresentations that in most cases simply ignored large portions of the RfDs, and all shown to be completely invalid claims that you refused to defend. This was all just before capitulating and losing the debate in question. You were also shown to be a serial accuser of almost everyone who voted against you. I’ve also explained that you keep saying objectively false things.

I don’t have to prove your dishonest when you make accusations such as me voting down everyone who is on my level - which is factually untrue.

You were given a platform and opportinity to demonstrate your accusations; and capitulated so embarrassingly you left the site for 3 days.

As no debate challenge has come in, I’m presuming you really only have more of the same sort of thing, and are thus trying to avoid further embarrassment.





#82
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Busy you can keep fucking worth me, taunting me and assuming I don't get sick of the site and wasting my time here instead of sick of your superiority to me that you assume to have. You're a sick-in-the-head, bully who has nothing going for him in life other than preying on the socially awkward.
#83
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Whhhheeeeaaaattttttoooonnnnnn!!!!!


#84
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You forgot to like your own comment. You're more of a Barry Kropke than a Will Wheaton.
#85
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
You forgot to use the words “brutally” and “sadistically”, so I guess we’re both failures.