Any debater 1570+ Rating, suggest a topic and sides you're on. I will take you up as I fancy.

Author: RationalMadman
RM
debating
fun
rating
competition

Posts

Total: 24
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I can no longer optimally gamble on noobsniping.

Despite what Oromagi and some say, once you're in the 1800s you gain way too little from wins vs noobs to make the risk vs reward healthy. I can no longer healthily hope to use my level of participation to carry me past a loss here and there. It's just not optimal.

I want regular clashes vs debaters nearer to 1600 than 1500. I will take you up on challenges, let me know. I'll require long Rounds, I want proper, decent clashes that let real life healthily interact with tough debates.

This is going to be beyond anything DDO ever had from any debater. I am going to be doing quality debate after quality debate, 1-week or 2-week Rounds, no mercy, no excuses proper clashing.
Topic's author
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Bones
@Novice_II
Interested?
Topic's author
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@MisterChris
@Intelligence_06
@Sum1hugme
@Undefeatable
@Benjamin
Interested?
Topic's author
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
you're essentially high rated enough and skilled enough (1552 atm) to make it worth clashing (even for practise vs your style) but your main debate design is abusive semantics, so I'd like to arrange a fair topic and fair semantics.
Topic's author
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
In fact Barney is due a strongman (I can't refuse) challenge on me as per this topic, I'm very sure (haven't counted the credits)

#6
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd be up for one, though I don't have a topic in mind. I'll give it some thought.
#7
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
What is abusive semantics?
Topic's author
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
well state your topics, we'll talk the semantics out right here in public if you want, or in private. either way works for me. I'mbusy though for today, much better to wait the weekend for me this week.
#9
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
I was just asking what abusive semantics means as a debate style.

I have multiple different styles of debate. It all depends on the target audience. 

I could go into it, but it would be revealing trade secrets.

My first debate with Oromagi was not a real debate on the debate topic. I had originally wanted to debate actual voter fraud (which was the topic of the debate). Not if it was possible to undo the certification or if I or he made the first logical fallacy. It turned into a stupid debate after that because it was almost entirely off topic. This is why I now add "only debate" when I make descriptions, because I don't want to have an entirely separate debate than the one I set up.

If I had wanted to debate on whether decertification was possible, I would have set up the debate that way, but I didn't. So idk why it was even brought up.

A LOT of the people on here are semantic abusers and a LOT of the voters here vote on technicalities and loopholes in the description. This is because their votes get removed otherwise for being bad votes.
#10
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
If you had wanted to solely debate the existence of voter fraud sufficient to have potentially changed the outcome of the election, then you should have left the issue of decertification out of your resolution entirely. I may not have voted on the plausibility of decertification myself, but by including decertification in your topic as the mode of action, you invited that line of argumentation. You can say that it's just overly nitpicky, but when I look at a resolution (and I honestly hope everyone does this), the mode of action is something that immediately draws my attention, and while this was a "should" resolution that implies that you bypass inherency concerns, the use of decertification as a mechanism still mattered because you had to win that that was the right way to respond to the problem.

You can call all this semantics, but this is what a lot of debate is built upon, and frankly, I think you're best served by more carefully drafting your resolutions than you are by including extraneous details and then stating the limits of what you and your opponent can argue separately in the description. The resolution should provide discrete boundaries for what can be argued in the debate. Adding limitations just provides another layer of semantics to parse.
#11
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Public-Choice
What is abusive semantics?

DEFINITIONS:
All definitions shall come from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, available here:
TYRANNY (definition 1 of Merriam Webster): oppressive power
DEMOCRACY (definition 1 especially): rule of the majority
Rigging debates in your favor by selectively cherry-picking definitions to ensure your victory is a popular trap to bait opponents into an inevitable defeat. 

#12
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm interested, but I'm not sure what topics I'd want to debate atm
#13
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@whiteflame
@Sir.Lancelot
What part of:
PRO must argue there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.

CON must argue there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.
Says we are arguing whether it is possible or not?

Definition of must (merriam webster):
must
auxiliary verb

1
a
: be commanded or requested to
you must stop
b
: be urged to : ought by all means to
you must read that book
2
: be compelled by physical necessity to
one must eat to live
: be required by immediate or future need or purpose to
we must hurry to catch the bus
3
a
: be obliged to : be compelled by social considerations to
I must say you're looking well
b
: be required by law, custom, or moral conscience (see CONSCIENCE sense 1) to
we must obey the rules
c
: be determined to
if you must go at least wait for me
d
: be unreasonably or perversely compelled to
why must you argue
4
: be logically inferred (see INFER sense 1) or supposed to
it must be time
5
: be compelled by fate or by natural law to
what must be will be
6
: was or were presumably certain to : was or were bound to
if he did it she must have known
7
dialect : MAY, SHALL —used chiefly in questions
Can you point to a single definition where it says "to do the opposite of" or "to ignore the command of"?

I also banned red herrings. It was a total red herring. You even just admitted it yourself, but you tried to say I caused it when I told both parties what they are arguing.

You are allowed to vote however you want since you are a moderator. But don't say I opened the door to an off-topic debate when I DEFINED THE TOPIC OF DEBATE and told the parties what to debate.

Your logic is akin to saying it is totally fair game to debate whether Hitler's assassination would have prevented the holocaust in a debate on whether Hitler caused the holocaust. Of course in a hypothetical situation where there is a completely separate topic sny inane and cockamamie argument can be made. But they are off-topic arguments. So they don't prove anything.
#14
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
That is what democracy is. It is a majority telling a minority what to do. I didn't argue republicanism is tyranny. I argued DEMOCRACY is tyranny.

There is nothing abusive about using established, authoritative dictionary definitions.

If you are offended by my choice in definitions, then you are offended by dictionaries, which is a silly thing to be offended by.
#15
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
Dude, if you really want to go into this much detail, let's take it out of RM's thread. I'm not going to clog it up with stuff specific to your debate.
#16
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@whiteflame
You're right. Clogging up a thread is wrong. I should have responded in a PM.
#17
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Public-Choice
There is nothing abusive about using established, authoritative dictionary definitions.
I'm not discussing whether the accuracy of the adjective 'abusive' is applicable. 

You asked for an explanation, and I told you what RM meant by it.

If you are offended by my choice in definitions, then you are offended by dictionaries, which is a silly thing to be offended by.

Your logic:
Making an observation. = Akin to me getting emotional.
#18
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Fair point. I asked RM, but if he agrees with you then I'll take it as what he meant.
Topic's author
#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
I literally said it in the comments section of that debate.

Don't act clueless, it's not a good look on you.
#20
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Did you? I'd have to check. Which debate was it?
#21
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Public-Choice

Which debate was it?
Really?


#22
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I was asking RM, not you. If you look at the little @ thingy you'll know who I'm talking to.
#23
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Public-Choice
You seem miffed, I was only trying to help you out. 
#24
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I kinda was. lol.