I know you're talking about me, so I will respond.
For starters, let's start with your description:
we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it.
Now let's look at what I said again:
According to the debate description, we are considering DebateArt as the criteria. So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description. CON structured his....
This isn't some deepthroating of Barney's dick or anything. It is applying what you wrote in the debate description as the criterion for the debate. I do this with all my votes.
To be honest, I know almost nothing about Barney. I have rarely interacted with Barney. I have only seen, maybe, one debate he was in. So I came to this basically fresh and non-partisan. I also barely saw most of the forum posts you did and barely knew anything about you.
If you didn't want "only DebateArt" to be considered then you shouldn't have said that. It was a very easy problem to avoid. But it is clear from your description you are evaluating Barney's ability based on DebateArt. That is what your description stated. And that is how I rated the debate.
So let's go to your arguments now. I'm going to block quote because you clearly seem to think I had it in for you.
- How we determine this? Two ways
- Look at all their opponents holistically - what is their combined record?
- Combined records is a good way to determine strength. Eg. if my record is 100-0 but all my opponents have lost 10 times this isn't impressive. However, if my record is 10-3 and all my opponents have won 100 times, this is indicate of a better debater. It isn't perfect, but the probabilities of noob sniping is much less in the bare record (more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people).
Your OPENING ARGUMENT is using debate metrics PROVIDED BY DEBATEART.COM.
You then provide a statistical analysis of why you think elo doesn't matter. But, here's the thing. YOU made this about debate records. YOU made this about DebateArt performance. And YOU made this about "only DebateArt" as the metric.
But it gets better:
- Combined record
- 390-1104
- FUN FACT - Barney has, out of his 37 opponents beaten on 3 people with a positive win loss ratio
- Strong opponents
Here is where you shoot yourself in the foot. While trying to prove Barney is a terrible debater, you list how he has beaten Novice_II, who is honestly the best debater on this website.
You do this to prove he is a bad debater? You shot yourself in the foot. I didn't even need CON to respond. You already made the case against yourself.
But you then further proceed to shoot yourself in the foot with your final opening argument:
Argument three: No one on this site is a good debater
If you think no one on this site is a good debater, then why did you bring up Novice_II? Why did you make your own personal tier list of debaters based on wins against strong debaters? Why do any of that?
But even more so, WHY BOTHER SAYING YOU WILL ONLY CONSIDER DEBATEART IF YOU DON'T EVEN THINK ANYONE ON HERE IS A GOOD DEBATER?
But, knowing that I am not allowed to respond in place of CON, I waited to see how CON responded.
And he nails it on the head:
I shall prove my case on three fronts, which shall be given their own sections below
- Win Record
- Leaderboard
- Quality of Debates
Why did he nail it on the head? BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY CONSIDERING DEBATEART. He is following the prompt.
He also notes this in his opening argument:
Scope
This debate is limited to DebateArt.com, as written in the description: “we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it”[sic]. Therefore, I shall seek to prove myself good by the standards of this website.
He is making a statement of fact here. A statement of fact that could have easily been avoided if you wrote the description differently. BUT YOU DIDN'T.
He then defines good in a way that you also agreed to with your opening argument:
Given the many definitions for good, I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website.
You said, in your opening argument:
B must prove that he did this, again, from my chaotic state observation, the status quo is that he has not done any of these things (we should assume he hasn't) so to disprove this point he must prove that he has done some good debates
So you are both working out of the same definition for good.
He then proceeds to show how he is good, and, THIS IS THE KEY PART HERE, ONLY CONSIDERING DEBATEART.
So he followed the prompt, unlike you, btw. Your argument three days that outside accolades matter more than wins on DebateArt. You also asked Barney to prove he has won accolades. I don't know what in the world that has to do with "we only consider DebateArt."
To be a good debater out of the wide pool of debaters that exist, you must have some great debating skills and corresponding prizes (participated in national debating, participated in Ivy League debates, participated in high level debates e.g. Harris vs Peterson, or debated in high level debating contests). B must prove that he did this, again, from my chaotic state observation, the status quo is that he has not done any of these things (we should assume he hasn't) so to disprove this point he must prove that he has done some good debates. If he hasn't then he isn't a good debater, in the sense that in society, he is not a good debater.
No you don't. Not for this debate at least. For this debate we are only considering DebateArt. So what the flying fuck do accolades and participating in Ivy League Debates have to do with this debate? They are outside of DebateArt. You basically decided to abandon your own argument and begin requiring a different test than your description.
So CON won not because "I hate you," or because "I am biased toward Barney" or any other horseshit. CON won because he stuck to the prompt and proved USING ONLY DEBATEART that he is a good debater. Like it or not, according to the WEBSITE METRICS, which you also used, and according to WHOM HE HAS BEATEN, you lost this debate.
All CON had to do was make that clear. DebateArt uses a leaderboard and elo rating to determine the best debaters. Barney is one of the highest-ranked debaters on this website and he beat Novice_II, which you noted, who is a higher rank than he is currently.
Look to be honest, you are actually right that he noob snipes. But rather than use DebateArt metrics to prove this and then proceed to discredit the elo rating and leaderboard, you could have come at it from an entirely different angle and simply showed how Barney's debates themselves were not impressive. But you fucked up when you went to the leaderboard and used DebateArt statistics to make your case.
It was a bad debate on your part. You handed Barney the victory.
