debate.org vs dart

Author: Vici

Posts

Total: 80
#31
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
-> @Shila
Was showing humility your way of dealing with your below average in skill, knowledge, and coordination?
The point was that I applied humility before I actually knew how my skills compared, and I was still waaay off on how good I was. I am now well aware of my deficiencies in that field, and wouldn't define my current beliefs as humility, but honesty. I am quite proud of how intelligent I am, but surround myself by even smarter people wherever possible.
It appears you realized that you were well below average in skill, knowledge, and coordination. How would surrounding yourself with smarter people improve your lack of skill in football.

which sounds a lot more egotistical. And Dunning-Kruger doesn't just apply to intelligence, but any estimation of how your own skills/abilities/experiences compares to others. When I learned how to play football as a kid, I thought I was pretty good. My parents had spent a lot of time teaching me the importance of humility, so I modestly assigned myself as only the top 25% of kids my age. Then I went to middle school and realized that I was well below average in skill, knowledge, and coordination.

#32
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
Its got nothing to do with how my current skill is, Michael. Regardless of my deficits, they can all be overcome. I'm not ignoring them, i learn constantly. My goal isn't even to get on the top 10 leaderboard. Most of my losses are forfeits or debating silly things. What im really saying is in 10 years ill have the capacity to beat anyone on most topics.
#33
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Shila
How would surrounding yourself with smarter people improve your lack of skill in football.
I have no desire to improve at football. I stopped playing after the second time I broke my glasses. Surrounding yourself with people smarter than you is highly motivating when it comes to intellectual development which I do desire to improve at.
#34
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
What im really saying is in 10 years ill have the capacity to beat anyone on most topics.
I disagree based on the same reasons I outlined regarding reaching the top 10. I hope you continue to try to improve, regardless of my skepticism.
#35
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
People massively overestimate dunning kruger. Many people on the lower scale decently overestimate how well they will do but they still rank themselves significantly below top achievers. Just look at the graph in the wiki you linked. highest achievers are very well aware of how good they do and even think they did amazing. Humility in my eyes is only acceptable in defeat, not in any other part of your life as it will make you a complacent loser.
#36
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
Humility in my eyes is only acceptable in defeat, not in any other part of your life as it will make you a complacent loser.
My apologies if it seemed like I was advocating for humility. At the bottom of my profile description you will find the phrase Tsuyoku naritai, which roughly translates to "I want to become stronger." Humility that limits your desire for improvement is abhorrent and should be destroyed. Pride that limits your desire for improvement is similarly abhorrent. Both can be destructive in this way, improper humility by thinking too little of yourself and believing that any effort on your part would be fruitless, and pride by thinking so much of yourself that you feel no attempt at improvement is necessary. The second doesn't necessarily apply to you, as your pride is in your ability to improve, so you are likely to continue seeking opportunities to do so. However, it's still really annoying to see some random guy on the Internet to declare himself "the best on the planet" at anything.
Topic's author
#37
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
no.
Topic's author
#38
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
because he is obviously stupid and not worth my time
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vici
How would an egotistical person describe Ehyeh?
#40
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ehyeh
The reason I do not change my mind often is because I think through very much, before assuming I know something.

After a while, your mind stops changing so often because you know what you believe and think and are certain in it.

That said, if you mean on nuances, I used to regard Putin as a highly intelligent sociopath but I now regard him as a standard narcissistic sociopath.

There are private things I have tweaked views on if you mean opinions on people, relationships and such.
#41
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
--> @Shila
How would surrounding yourself with smarter people improve your lack of skill in football.
I have no desire to improve at football. I stopped playing after the second time I broke my glasses. Surrounding yourself with people smarter than you is highly motivating when it comes to intellectual development which I do desire to improve at.
Does that not reflect badly on smart people who would associate with you knowing you were well below average in skill, knowledge, and coordination? Is that how they appeared smarter being surrounded by people like you who were well below average in skill, knowledge, and coordination.

It looks like you got smarter after you broke your glasses the second time.

#42
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Shila
You are deliberately misunderstanding me. I am below average at football, not "skill, knowledge, and coordination" in general. I am well above average in intelligence and knowledge.
#43
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
Tbh, DDO would eviscerate DART.

Top 5 on DART (No particular order), being absolutely serious here:
Ramshutu
Oromagi
Novice II
Public choice
Elliott
(And if I am not allowed to vote for myself, whiteflame)

Top 5 DDO (no particular order):
Bluesteel
Mikal
Bsh1
Thett3
RoyLatham

I think bluesteel and bsh1 alone could take 4 of the top 5 DART members by themselves without much effort. Mikal, I think, could easily take 3, 4 with serious effort, but only 5 if given advanced time to prepare.

So that shows where the differences are. When Mikal and Bluesteel debated gun rights, for instance, it looked like two ivy league scholars debating their research for a peer-reviewed board of criminologists to vote on. They brought forward advanced statistical analysis, deeply sourced research, and also spent time picking apart all the logical fallacies in each other's arguments with gusto and brutally logical responses.

When MisterChris and RationalMadman debated recently, it looked like two bookworms who had a shouting match with sources. No deep analysis of the other person's positions. No heavy engagement with the other person's sources, no real analysis of why the other person is actually wrong. Just two people shouting their interpretation is right and telling voters the other person's interpretations are moot.

So, in all honesty, bluesteel and Mikal alone could probably sufficiently demolish most of the whole DART top 5 if it was just 2v5 besides maybe Ramshutu (again assuming I am not allowed to choose myself), who would be able to actually pick holes in bluesteel and mikal's arguments without resorting to logical fallacies and voter manipulation tactics. Tbh, idk if I can sufficiently demolish either one individually on every topic, let alone both combined. I might be able to beat bluesteel on some issues, and Mikal on some issues, but certainly not both combined. Idk if Ramshutu can beat them either, but he certainly seems like a much better candidate than almost all of the rest of DART to even have a chance.
#44
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
Who was the most prolific Christian debater on DDO?
#45
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
And almost all of those beliefs you have will have things left out, Once we stop synthesising new ideas (Hegel) we will eventually attain that old man status of "being stuck in his ways".
#46
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
There are times when it's suboptimal to waste character overly engaging the opponent's case, rather than fleshing out one's own. What you talk about with me vs Chris was optimisation, you just have a style preference to heavy attack instead of defense.
#47
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
Thett3 probably but Ragnar/Barney was up there too.
#48
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
There are times when it's suboptimal to waste character overly engaging the opponent's case
Personally I disagree. The best debaters, historically, were those who were able to eviscerate their opponents from an argument standard by picking out flaws in their reasoning and amplifying such flaws to reveal the horribleness of the argument.

Socrates was one of the best debaters in human history. So much so that he ended up being killed for being right. The whole town of Athens had run out of logical reasons to disagree with him so they made up bullshit excuses to kill him. You could argue he ultimately lost the war, but much of what he said was for the onlookers who were watching and not for the other people involved.

Jesus did this too. He would point out things the other party believed and show how their case is completely wrong. But Jesus would often take a premise that the other party does not dispute and show how, if they agree with that, then they cannot object to another bigger and more important conclusion that relies on that premise. It's a little different, but it still gets at the central idea of engaging directly with the other person's statements and either discrediting it by showing the logical inconsistencies of it or flat out eviscerating the opponent's foundational beliefs.

Cicero, too, believed arguments are won by knowing more than the other person. He would base his rhetoric mostly on attacking and discrediting the other person's arguments while showing how the other person is not providing a better case than his own. And when Cicero was on the defensive, he would dig in further and seek to discredit the other person's argument entirely and show how it is not a real representation of his beliefs.

I am citing these three because they are arguably the most persuasive people in history who won a great many debates. To this day, Socrates is still revered as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. And Jesus is seen by billions around the world as an extremely wise man. Cicero is lesser-known today, but in his day few thought there was a batter orator than him.
#49
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
Tautology, you define a best debater as that.
#50
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
Jesus only knew how to build a fantasy, he had no idea how to engage the opponent. He had a cult of 12 disciples/apostles and persuaded due to the special prowess that gave him.
#51
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
I have not known Socrates to destroy opponents, he just preached rather standalone as a knowitall but I would be open to read about it.
#52
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Public-Choice
Debating styles have changed. Its completely impossible to use the Socratic method in the way debates are conducted nowadays. Socrates also never "debated" ideas. He would almost never argue any sort of point himself but turn someone else's on them. In reality that is the main reason he was killed, he would never give an opinion of his own and let people use the Socratic method on him, people seen his as a deceptive smart ass because of it. I couldn't go into a debate on abortion tomorrow and simply point out the flaws in their system without proposing an alternative, people would understandably think im being in poor conduct and a bad debater for it.
#53
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
nah you're right. He never "debated" in any sort of way we do it in the modern day.
#54
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
I seem to agree with the majority of what Vici has stated here in the sense that I don't see the logic of placing debaters like Oromagi on a team that is meant to be good. I don't know much about debate.org, however I know that it is a dysfunctional website, and currently exhibits nothing of value. 
#55
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
If I were to make a team from debateart.com, I would choose these people in no particular order given that these people each specialize in different topics:

1. Bones
2. Christianm
3. MisterChris
4. Fruit_Inspector
5. Semperfortis
6. Public-Choice
7. Ehyeh 
8. ossa 997
9. ILikePie5
10. BDPTheGreat



#56
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Novice_II
If I were to make a team from debateart.com, I would choose these people in no particular order given that these people each specialize in different topics:

1. Bones
2. Christianm
3. MisterChris
4. Fruit_Inspector
5. Semperfortis
6. Public-Choice
7. Ehyeh 
Sounds like good choices for a Novice.
#57
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@Shila
They appear to be good choices for anyone, regardless of their name, so that would make this proposition true via modus ponens, I suppose.
#58
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Novice_II
--> @Shila
They appear to be good choices for anyone, regardless of their name, so that would make this proposition true via modus ponens, I suppose.
I would love to debate but I worry about gender bias.

#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
You're a determinist Michael. Determinists will forever limit their potential.
do you think the same thing about "indeterminists" ?
#60
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
-> @Ehyeh
You're a determinist Michael. Determinists will forever limit their potential.
do you think the same thing about "indeterminists" ?
They are both opposite sides of the same coin.