sorry, there's no way barney would ever challenge me in a legit debate. he just snipes opponents and honestly, as is evident in my argument, he will only debate people who knows he can beat. So, although I am open to this idea, this fair notion for a random topic, I don't think barney would ever be up for anything so unpredictable.
WHY DOES EVERYONE TALK ABOUT THE SMALL KRITIK I TALKED ABOUT. WHY DONT YOU TALK ABOUT THE MAIN ARGUMENT, THAT IS THE ACTUAL MEEEETTRIICCCC OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD DEBATER??? you are clearly voting with preconceived ideals.
"In proving they are good, you then proved that Barney is good on the same metric"
yup I said this preemptively in round 1.
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)
I know its not perfect, but it sure as hell is BETTER when COMPARED to the metric barney uses.
rational mad man do you agree that you awarding the vote based on my "accidentally" adding Tejectics was a mistake, and that holistically, the other people whiteflames has defeated are good?
I also want to attack the source votes from Michael and public choice. please observe the voting policy, saying when points are not given.
Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
Look at Barneys sources
The leaderboard uses an Elo calculation to rate debaters against each other via comparative and weighted wins and losses (1).
I’m 4th place out of 636 debaters (there are 2,839 total site members) (2).
The leaderboard uses an Elo calculation to rate debaters against each other via comparative and weighted wins and losses (1).
I’m 4th place out of 636 debaters (there are 2,839 total site members) (2).
it's just linking common knowledge things - ie the site leaderboard, his profile, and his past debates.
this site is wholly flawed - when it comes to say novice vs oromagi debate, the rational mad mans vote for novice (very lengthy and deeply rooted in logic) was removed on the grounds that there was speculation of it being "retaliation" (such subjective and whimsical evidence, contrary to say "rational mad man did not provide good proof), despite the fact that every vote here is retaliating. It is clear that there is a very very strong bias to protect the likes of oromagi barney.
"Another issue is scope of the debate. Pro says in the description, written by himself, that this is only about DART yet uses DDO to regard Tejretics as a good opponent for whiteflame to have defeated and starts an entire contention that cuts his case in half, slaughtering the first contention in its entirety."
ok well even wifi accept that this is a slip up, the veracty of my argument isn't changed if you remove Tejectics - there are the others
" The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points."
do you think voters ought to address the HEART of an argument? don't you see that the argument which Michael addressed as being strong was addressed? I"ll draw the issue. This is like someone argues the problem of evil, and I respond with free will defence, but as well the as free will defence, I also provide the Ontological argument. Imagine if my opponent then said "I proved the problem of evil and the ontological argument doesn't disprove this". OBVIOUSLY, I proved the FREE WILL DEFENCE, not the ontological argument which was a SEPERATE ARGUMENT. Do you not see that it is just wrong the line Michael went down?
Unfortunately, I must report this once again, for the argument points remain poor. The vote still says.
"Pro's ONLY counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description."
The entire vote is hinged on an argument which I WILLINGLY DROPPED after the very first line, and the argument was itself a kritik so it was never the heart of my argument. Furthermore, the arguments which actually created conversation "my argument one and argument two", where never mentioned. Right now, this vote is akin to someone voting against a debater because their final sentence which summarises their arguments with some tongue and cheek is not sufficient. The ESSENSE and MAJORITY of my argument has been ignored.
so again to your question, I would like a good vote, but if it is a good vote, then it will be in favour for me. Im really trying not to be arrogant, but this is how I see it. I see zero way Barney won that one.
I don't think there is such a thing. I truly think I won and I'm not putting up the crazy raged insultive persona but I seriously think I proposed a metric (conceptually uncontested meaning that Barney doesn't disagree that that is how we ought judge a good debater, he only disagreed by saying he met that standard) which cut at barney. Also what was that thing which the debate came down to you thought which you mentioned a while ago.
also I don't know why you blocked me I rather I like you.
Why is everyone voting against me in such poor votes? I mean this genuinely - im just a guy here who wants to have some good quality debates, and who wishes for some engaging voters. All I wish for is just some voters who will put their predisposed biases away - I know this is difficult because Barney has indeed had great debates in debate.org, but I really wanted to just look at him now as he is.
Again, im sorry for reporting another vote but there are truly many bad voters here. K_Michael said
"Pro's ONLY counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description."
I think the voter is weighing the entire debate on Argument three: No one on this site is a good debater, however, this is clearly to ignore argument one and two. Furthermore, I actually did drop that argument and instead pursued the first two, which got 0 consideration from the voter. It was also clear that the argument which Michael is referring to is a kritik - being a mere small bit of the debate which is not to be conflated with the meat of the debate.
Could you please remove the vote? The voter said "However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes" even though Con never manages "debate analysis" thought "his votes", a fact which is also acknowledged by barney in comment 64.
"So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description."
ADDRESSED substantively through Clarification: Debater vs Debater to which Public Choice gave NO thought.
"CON structured his argument based on the statistical average of the leaderboard and the existence of the Hall of Fame, which are two metrics that DebateArt explicitly uses to rank debaters and good debates."
ADDRESSED substantively through Argument two: B does not have the traits of a good debater subsection good analysis abilities argument combined record, which the voter gave NO thought too.
I get that voters cannot look through everything, but these are literally my ENTIRE contentions - they constitute my ENTIRE argument. They should be looked at in voting.
"He addressed an issue with your argument that applies to your main point"
The voting policy clearly says "A sufficient vote must not merely reiterate who you agreed with, rather you should be able to vote against your preferred side should their case be inferior". Point to me where there was analysis. Public choice said "So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description" however I am not aware he was a third debater?? This is just reiterating the CON point where is the analysis? Again, what Public Choice has done is akin to me going to some debate, copy and pasting the side which I agree withs conclusion, and submitting it as my vote. NEVER does public choice EVER engage with my arguements, and its not as if my arguments were unclear, I literally put them under very clear subtitles which went completely unanalysed.
It is not that I disagree, it is that the vote is NOT sufficient under the current voting standard, unless the standard allows for voters to merely restate an argument.
if I do an abortion debate and define abortion as "drinking water" OBVIOUSLY THSI WOULD BE DUMB BECAUSE IT IS JUST ACCEPTED THAT WE OUGHT TO USE THE DICTIONARY INSTEAD OF WEIRDO DEFINITIONS.
You could have said "dictionary.com shall supply all definitions" in your description, but you didn't.
WHY DO I NEED TO SAY THIS. THIS IS LIKE SAYING "we are agreeing to logic, we are agreeing to the law of non-contradiction, we are voting based on who has better arguments". THIS IS UTTERLY STUPUD - IT IS REASONABLE TO USE THE GOD DAMN DICTIONARY AS A SOURCE AND ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE. FURTHERMORE, THESE TERMS ARE TOO BE DEBATED IN THE DEBATE, AND I PROVIDED SUBSTANTIVE PROOF AS TO WHY MY DEFINITION IS BETTER.
this is bull shit - the only reason you didn't take it down is because you don't like me. the vote does not address any arguments. how can you let this go? my MAIN argument is not addressed. Also, the dumb voter just repeated the CON point - this is like if I vote for a debate and just copy and paste the side I like's conclusion as my vote, without looking at the substance of the vote.
for example, if I make a debate saying "X user has acted in an immoral way" and put in the description "we only consider this site" it is VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO ISNT A DUMBASS that "immoral way" is still defined NORMALLY - that is, in a way that is not moral. it doesn't mean we take this weirdo definition "oh well for the STANDARDS OF THIS SITE they aren't immoral" NO dumbass this isn't what we do we use the definition which is COMMONPLACE dumbass do you understand?
Just now in your response comment you once again stated you went OUTSIDE of the website.
yes but DEFINITIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE WEBSITE BY NATURE DUMBASS. I can say "barney used sources such as wikipedia which are outside of this site, and they also mentioned the special pleading fallacy which originitated outside the site" obviously we use REAL WORLD TERMS AND DEFINITIONS bu saying "we consider this site" doesn't mean we change the definition of words dumbass.
"the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use..."
In other words: "even though the description limits the analysis to just DebateArt, I am going to impose outside standards I didn't lay out in the description."
no dumbass don't apply your "in other words" bs. I have shown why it is NORMAL to consider definitions OUTSIDE of a website and that it is UTTERLY ABSURD to define a good debater or speaker outside within a medium. when you ask "are you a good debater" I am asking if you are a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner well. obviously you can be the person who tops this site but is still not A PERSON WHO ARGUES ABOUT A SUBJECT ESPECIALLY IN A FORMAL MANNER WELL
B quite cheekily states the following: 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. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site.
see how he is refusing to accept defending something as trivial as rights for African Americans? You know why? because it says no kritik, which is orosadmi's only tool he has. once I take it away, its like taking away a toy from a child - he is a useless sob. its all on display now - the "best" debater on the site unable to defeat someone on whether slavery is good.
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'
hey you dumb fraudster I already addressed that with a plethora of examples and proof.
Wow - your case is just horrible. Initially when I made this debate, it was a bit of tongue and cheek but now, I am fully convinced that you are a sham. You literally straw manned my argument (ignorance of the Clarification: Debater vs Debater section, introduction of a whole bunch of new points at a time when I cannot respond because of course ur whimpy ass wont mention them in the first round where I can respond, anda whole bunch of disgusting strawman). I truly wish I made this debate five rounds so that I can properly teach you some debating skills.
vote against me then.
shiver me timbers a "few" challenges over "the years"? How very prolific!
"Plus since you believe online debating does not count"
I do
embarrass myself? this is the only time I'll ever take your advice, as you a truly an expert as embarrassing yourself.
sorry, there's no way barney would ever challenge me in a legit debate. he just snipes opponents and honestly, as is evident in my argument, he will only debate people who knows he can beat. So, although I am open to this idea, this fair notion for a random topic, I don't think barney would ever be up for anything so unpredictable.
Yeah pipe down before you embarrass yourself alright?
all that whiteflame and Bones defeated are not good.
look ill give it to you easier. please just yes or no
has whiteflames defeated good debater YES OR NO.
has barney defeated good debaters YES OR NO.
WHY DOES EVERYONE TALK ABOUT THE SMALL KRITIK I TALKED ABOUT. WHY DONT YOU TALK ABOUT THE MAIN ARGUMENT, THAT IS THE ACTUAL MEEEETTRIICCCC OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD DEBATER??? you are clearly voting with preconceived ideals.
"Furthermore, Barney as Ragnar on DDO"
blah blah ddo talk.
"In proving they are good, you then proved that Barney is good on the same metric"
yup I said this preemptively in round 1.
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)
I know its not perfect, but it sure as hell is BETTER when COMPARED to the metric barney uses.
rational mad man do you agree that you awarding the vote based on my "accidentally" adding Tejectics was a mistake, and that holistically, the other people whiteflames has defeated are good?
as said in the debate, if I have a high win record against people who have lost 10000 times, im not very good in any metric am I?
But look, you are also a noob sniper so this argument attacks you so you would never have agreed.
the high win record against people who have had a high win record.
there is also within the policy of the site that you ought to leave someone alone if they wish. so if novice wants barney to engage, they ought to.
What makes anyone on your list good?
the ability to defeat debaters who have a high win record against people who are defined as "good".
I also want to attack the source votes from Michael and public choice. please observe the voting policy, saying when points are not given.
Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
Look at Barneys sources
The leaderboard uses an Elo calculation to rate debaters against each other via comparative and weighted wins and losses (1).
I’m 4th place out of 636 debaters (there are 2,839 total site members) (2).
The leaderboard uses an Elo calculation to rate debaters against each other via comparative and weighted wins and losses (1).
I’m 4th place out of 636 debaters (there are 2,839 total site members) (2).
it's just linking common knowledge things - ie the site leaderboard, his profile, and his past debates.
this site is wholly flawed - when it comes to say novice vs oromagi debate, the rational mad mans vote for novice (very lengthy and deeply rooted in logic) was removed on the grounds that there was speculation of it being "retaliation" (such subjective and whimsical evidence, contrary to say "rational mad man did not provide good proof), despite the fact that every vote here is retaliating. It is clear that there is a very very strong bias to protect the likes of oromagi barney.
"Another issue is scope of the debate. Pro says in the description, written by himself, that this is only about DART yet uses DDO to regard Tejretics as a good opponent for whiteflame to have defeated and starts an entire contention that cuts his case in half, slaughtering the first contention in its entirety."
ok well even wifi accept that this is a slip up, the veracty of my argument isn't changed if you remove Tejectics - there are the others
Oromagi
bmdrocks21
blamonkey
RationalMadMan
Ehyeh
Undefeatable
Intelligence
MrChris
which qualify whole heartedly.
" The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points."
do you think voters ought to address the HEART of an argument? don't you see that the argument which Michael addressed as being strong was addressed? I"ll draw the issue. This is like someone argues the problem of evil, and I respond with free will defence, but as well the as free will defence, I also provide the Ontological argument. Imagine if my opponent then said "I proved the problem of evil and the ontological argument doesn't disprove this". OBVIOUSLY, I proved the FREE WILL DEFENCE, not the ontological argument which was a SEPERATE ARGUMENT. Do you not see that it is just wrong the line Michael went down?
Unfortunately, I must report this once again, for the argument points remain poor. The vote still says.
"Pro's ONLY counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description."
The entire vote is hinged on an argument which I WILLINGLY DROPPED after the very first line, and the argument was itself a kritik so it was never the heart of my argument. Furthermore, the arguments which actually created conversation "my argument one and argument two", where never mentioned. Right now, this vote is akin to someone voting against a debater because their final sentence which summarises their arguments with some tongue and cheek is not sufficient. The ESSENSE and MAJORITY of my argument has been ignored.
Easy, thanks a bunch for all of your help!
so again to your question, I would like a good vote, but if it is a good vote, then it will be in favour for me. Im really trying not to be arrogant, but this is how I see it. I see zero way Barney won that one.
also, I wasn't saying your mother would rather have had a period than you, unless you reported my post?
Did you just expose yourself?
well you can vote but you can be sure that if the vote is bad, I will be after you (in the sense that I will question you rigioursly)
I don't think there is such a thing. I truly think I won and I'm not putting up the crazy raged insultive persona but I seriously think I proposed a metric (conceptually uncontested meaning that Barney doesn't disagree that that is how we ought judge a good debater, he only disagreed by saying he met that standard) which cut at barney. Also what was that thing which the debate came down to you thought which you mentioned a while ago.
also I don't know why you blocked me I rather I like you.
Why is everyone voting against me in such poor votes? I mean this genuinely - im just a guy here who wants to have some good quality debates, and who wishes for some engaging voters. All I wish for is just some voters who will put their predisposed biases away - I know this is difficult because Barney has indeed had great debates in debate.org, but I really wanted to just look at him now as he is.
Again, im sorry for reporting another vote but there are truly many bad voters here. K_Michael said
"Pro's ONLY counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description."
I think the voter is weighing the entire debate on Argument three: No one on this site is a good debater, however, this is clearly to ignore argument one and two. Furthermore, I actually did drop that argument and instead pursued the first two, which got 0 consideration from the voter. It was also clear that the argument which Michael is referring to is a kritik - being a mere small bit of the debate which is not to be conflated with the meat of the debate.
thank you
Could you please remove the vote? The voter said "However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes" even though Con never manages "debate analysis" thought "his votes", a fact which is also acknowledged by barney in comment 64.
what do you think of my criteria for a good debater and the combined record metric?
"He seems to be straight up telling you that any response doesn't sufficient"
yeah well nothing I can do then right? predisposed beliefs are too powerful.
last thing from me but what do you think of post 56. This is very serious - public choice did not respond in any capacity to my argument.
For example;
"So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description."
ADDRESSED substantively through Clarification: Debater vs Debater to which Public Choice gave NO thought.
"CON structured his argument based on the statistical average of the leaderboard and the existence of the Hall of Fame, which are two metrics that DebateArt explicitly uses to rank debaters and good debates."
ADDRESSED substantively through Argument two: B does not have the traits of a good debater subsection good analysis abilities argument combined record, which the voter gave NO thought too.
I get that voters cannot look through everything, but these are literally my ENTIRE contentions - they constitute my ENTIRE argument. They should be looked at in voting.
below
"He addressed an issue with your argument that applies to your main point"
The voting policy clearly says "A sufficient vote must not merely reiterate who you agreed with, rather you should be able to vote against your preferred side should their case be inferior". Point to me where there was analysis. Public choice said "So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description" however I am not aware he was a third debater?? This is just reiterating the CON point where is the analysis? Again, what Public Choice has done is akin to me going to some debate, copy and pasting the side which I agree withs conclusion, and submitting it as my vote. NEVER does public choice EVER engage with my arguements, and its not as if my arguments were unclear, I literally put them under very clear subtitles which went completely unanalysed.
It is not that I disagree, it is that the vote is NOT sufficient under the current voting standard, unless the standard allows for voters to merely restate an argument.
if I do an abortion debate and define abortion as "drinking water" OBVIOUSLY THSI WOULD BE DUMB BECAUSE IT IS JUST ACCEPTED THAT WE OUGHT TO USE THE DICTIONARY INSTEAD OF WEIRDO DEFINITIONS.
You could have said "dictionary.com shall supply all definitions" in your description, but you didn't.
WHY DO I NEED TO SAY THIS. THIS IS LIKE SAYING "we are agreeing to logic, we are agreeing to the law of non-contradiction, we are voting based on who has better arguments". THIS IS UTTERLY STUPUD - IT IS REASONABLE TO USE THE GOD DAMN DICTIONARY AS A SOURCE AND ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE. FURTHERMORE, THESE TERMS ARE TOO BE DEBATED IN THE DEBATE, AND I PROVIDED SUBSTANTIVE PROOF AS TO WHY MY DEFINITION IS BETTER.
this is bull shit - the only reason you didn't take it down is because you don't like me. the vote does not address any arguments. how can you let this go? my MAIN argument is not addressed. Also, the dumb voter just repeated the CON point - this is like if I vote for a debate and just copy and paste the side I like's conclusion as my vote, without looking at the substance of the vote.
https://www.dictionary.com
here is a dictionary so you can learn some words.
for example, if I make a debate saying "X user has acted in an immoral way" and put in the description "we only consider this site" it is VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO ISNT A DUMBASS that "immoral way" is still defined NORMALLY - that is, in a way that is not moral. it doesn't mean we take this weirdo definition "oh well for the STANDARDS OF THIS SITE they aren't immoral" NO dumbass this isn't what we do we use the definition which is COMMONPLACE dumbass do you understand?
So you are, at this point, just proving my analysis correct.
yeah I know you seek validation after your dad left you but no need to lie ok?
Just now in your response comment you once again stated you went OUTSIDE of the website.
yes but DEFINITIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE WEBSITE BY NATURE DUMBASS. I can say "barney used sources such as wikipedia which are outside of this site, and they also mentioned the special pleading fallacy which originitated outside the site" obviously we use REAL WORLD TERMS AND DEFINITIONS bu saying "we consider this site" doesn't mean we change the definition of words dumbass.
could you please have a look at this vote?
"the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use..."
In other words: "even though the description limits the analysis to just DebateArt, I am going to impose outside standards I didn't lay out in the description."
no dumbass don't apply your "in other words" bs. I have shown why it is NORMAL to consider definitions OUTSIDE of a website and that it is UTTERLY ABSURD to define a good debater or speaker outside within a medium. when you ask "are you a good debater" I am asking if you are a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner well. obviously you can be the person who tops this site but is still not A PERSON WHO ARGUES ABOUT A SUBJECT ESPECIALLY IN A FORMAL MANNER WELL
B quite cheekily states the following: 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. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site.
dumbass learn to read
see how he is refusing to accept defending something as trivial as rights for African Americans? You know why? because it says no kritik, which is orosadmi's only tool he has. once I take it away, its like taking away a toy from a child - he is a useless sob. its all on display now - the "best" debater on the site unable to defeat someone on whether slavery is good.
sorry but I want to expose the fraudsters of this site first. ive already exposed barney and now its orosadmi.
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'
hey you dumb fraudster I already addressed that with a plethora of examples and proof.
hey fraudster, your vote is insufficient.
hey since I defeated your daddy let me be a you again.
Hey Barney jr and Barney jr, can you vote??
Wow - your case is just horrible. Initially when I made this debate, it was a bit of tongue and cheek but now, I am fully convinced that you are a sham. You literally straw manned my argument (ignorance of the Clarification: Debater vs Debater section, introduction of a whole bunch of new points at a time when I cannot respond because of course ur whimpy ass wont mention them in the first round where I can respond, anda whole bunch of disgusting strawman). I truly wish I made this debate five rounds so that I can properly teach you some debating skills.