-->
@RationalMadman
in general, I think I am, but its fine
October 2020 in-depth rating system for debaters, by RationalMadman.
Posts
Total:
65
-->
@RationalMadman
Appreciate it!
-->
@RationalMadman
Neat.
-->
@whiteflame
You only appreciate it because you are so highly ranked
-->
@RationalMadman
I mean... yes? But also I like that you took the time to make it. I like how you break down what debaters do well and poorly, and I appreciate your taking the time to do it.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme
Originality: 8
Depth of Research: 8
Effort vs Margin of Guaranteed Victory: 9
Intimidation Factor ~ Makes Opponents Forfeit/Concede: 7
Intimidation Factor ~ Unpredictability Drives Opponents To Argue Chaotically: 7
Intimidation Factor ~ Reputation Brings The Utmost Stress and Effort in Opponents: 8
Ingenuity of Debate-Structure Manipulation: 7
Eloquence: 8
Rebuttal Factor ~ Brushing off many paragraphs with 2-3 sentences: 6
Rebuttal Factor ~ Meshing rebuttals with contentions: 8
Rebuttal Factor ~ Constructing arguments that are extremely difficult to rebuke without hurting one's own case in some way: 7
Rebuttal Factor ~ Tendency to understand how voters interpret rebuttal-vs-contention interaction and strength: 8
Quality of Presentation: 7
-->
@RationalMadman
can you rank Imabench
-->
@Imabench
@seldiora
Imabench
Originality: 9
Depth of Research: 8
Effort vs Margin of Guaranteed Victory: 8
Intimidation Factor ~ Makes Opponents Forfeit/Concede: 7
Intimidation Factor ~ Unpredictability Drives Opponents To Argue Chaotically: 10
Intimidation Factor ~ Reputation Brings The Utmost Stress and Effort in Opponents: 9
Ingenuity of Debate-Structure Manipulation: 9
Eloquence: 10
Rebuttal Factor ~ Brushing off many paragraphs with 2-3 sentences: 7
Rebuttal Factor ~ Meshing rebuttals with contentions: 7
Rebuttal Factor ~ Constructing arguments that are extremely difficult to rebuke without hurting one's own case in some way: 7
Rebuttal Factor ~ Tendency to understand how voters interpret rebuttal-vs-contention interaction and strength: 9
Quality of Presentation: 10
-->
@RationalMadman
Neat thanks
-->
@RationalMadman
very nice. Also, if you had to rate my old account, would you give "9spaceking" different ratings from me or not?
-->
@seldiora
Yes, you were much worse before if you mean as a DART debater. People say you got worse when you came here and 'improved rapidly' but it's that you got slightly rusty and had gotten wiser but clumsy vs the norm here.
In DDO you could easily expect many noobs to accept debates, not just instigate them, so noobsniping was a matter of actively doing whatever you wanted and if a hard debater showed up you can just 'wing it' and not care too much about the loss. What you realised early on is that you can't handle the 11-on-the-go chain debate style you had at DDO in your hyper phases.
You also began to realise that voters here pay more attention to actual arguments-vs-rebuttals interaction (whether correctly understanding them or not) whereas on DDO eloquence mattered much more than logic, voters tended to get away with sloppy votes that just showed they got the 'gist'. This led to you learning to focus on the logic more than eloquence which is a correct adaptation to this site's environment and norms.
You never got worse and then 'rapidly got better' you just had a skillset coming here that was good enough for DDO grinding but bad for DART grinding.
7 days later
-->
@RationalMadman
can you rate Mall lol
-->
@seldiora
It is not on Mall's concern. Then from what I know he couldn't care less about what other people do then we have a draw here.
-->
@seldiora
The problem with Mall is that he isn't debating to win. He's debating to explore ideas but doing it in a competitive environment.
It's hard to measure his actual ability as he only rarely actually debates inside of the formal debate arena, he usually cross-examines as you pointed out.
-->
@RationalMadman
is there anyone you would rate 10 in all categories? Roy? Maybe a formal debater like Peterson or Ben Shapiro?
-->
@seldiora
Shapiro would get all 10s I reckon. Always well prepared, rebuts everything humorously, intimidates and never looses.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Shapiro would rebut that
-->
@Juice
Not well, Shapiro is a terrible example of a good debater, he's iconic for sure, but not very good.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Who do you believe to be a good debater then.
-->
@Juice
Matt Dillahunty, CosmicSkeptic "Alex O'Conner", RationalityRules "Steven Woodford"
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ben's views are debatable, but his ability to debate them is not. It's terribly egotistical to classify him as a "mediocre debater" just because you disagree with his positions... just as it would be heavily egotistical for me to classify you as a weak debater even though we are diametrically opposed on many issues
-->
@MisterChris
I think Ben is a bad debater because of his tendency to back up his claims with faulty evidence, no evidence at all, hypotheticals which are actually false equivalences or gish gallops, and logical fallacies in general.
-->
@Theweakeredge
All false, but let's assume that's true for the sake of argument. Even still, he whups the ass of most people you would consider "informed." You may think he uses faulty logic to do so, and that's your prerogative, but his performance as a debater is undebatable. If he is able to perform as well as he does at a "logical deficit" as you so claim, I say that's further proof of his skill.
And yes, a debater's skill should be measured by debate performance primarily. That is the only objective metric there is.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Honestly, I think your assessment is heavily skewed and egotistical. Denying his skill is like denying Albert Einstein is good at maths. You may dislike the guy, but he clearly has a talent.
-->
@MisterChris
No, not particularly, whenever he is not in a setting where he can mute the microphone of his contender or somewhere where he can't shot gun his opponent, or a whole assortment of other dishonest tactics, he does quite badly, and the video I linked earlier pointed out the specific points to where he does so.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your video is a man sitting around poking holes in an argument in which he has taken no part. Put him 1v1 against Ben, let's see what happens.
Regardless, my argument is not that Shapiro can't be beaten or all of his views are rock solid... that's not the point. The point is that on balance, he is objectively a skilled debater, literally famous for it, and acting like he isn't is just as dishonest as you purport his debating methods to be.
-->
@MisterChris
My point, is that whenever he "wins" a debate, he does not do it through actual valid ways, and his positions are empirically false and fallacious. The outcome of the debate matters less, than the actual arguments used, that's how you measure the skill of the debater. By how valid their actual arguments and rhetoric is
-->
@Theweakeredge
The point is not whether you agree with him or not, it is his debating skills. He always cites his sources off the top of his head when questioned, and uses smart analogy to put the other person's view in perspective. What do you mean he does not debate in a valid way? I think it's stubborn that you say he's not just an iffy debater, but that he is out right bad. It's clear that he is good as he has gotten to the position he is in and it is also clear that he knows what he's talking about as he has literally spent his life defending his POV successfully.
For the record, what I think makes a good debater is the ability to effectively argue the shit out of a position you don't agree with.
By the way is there a thread where people post debates that need to be voted on?