Total posts: 333
Posted in:
The incompetent moderators have accused me of being of being the alt of a seperate individual. To outline how utterly incompetent the moderator is, I would like the community to take a wild guess at who this user may be. I will identify this user (It wont be a call out from the POV of the mods I am them lmao) in two days time when the community can have their guess.
Also, mods, I do not want you to identify this user. This is a mater of privacy. I will reveal who this person is at the set time.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheism is a cult with it's own philosophy (materialism), morality (subjectivity/relavatism), beliefs (pro abortion and euthanasia)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
LMAO how doe sit feel reporting the post and then getting cock blocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You actually had no metric at all, that was Barney's overall Kritik and I believe he successfully did it as I explained in my vote, he turned your own case against itself in 2 ways at once.
so combined record isn't a metric?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
In the chaos state Chris, Novice, Bones, and Whiteflame, are all inferior at analysis to the debaters I defeated for having zero analysis ability shown.
Look I dont think you understand this bud. I dont NEED to show that Chris Novice or bones have better analysis. I only need to DECONSTRUCT your POSITIVE proof that you are good debate, for doing so will revert you back to the default.
At best your first standard shows that I am merely 3th place out of the 636, and to even then you chose to directly include cherry-picked data from DDO to make that conclusion.
NOPE. First of all, even if you are third, that doesn't automatically mean you are a good debater because it could mean that no one on the site is good. REMEMBER, that definitions are universal (when I look for the definition "Debater" I get it out of a dictionary, and doing otherwise will be a stipulative fallacy) so you are still left with showing me that you are a good debater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
winrate and rating.
Refuted - I showed that my metric is stronger because it is harder to exploit.
Also, I'm busy at the moment so I'll contact you when I can debate.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't see what you dont understand - the default is that Barney's not good. do you think he provided enough proof to build upwards onto this?
Created:
Posted in:
! That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dont need to prove that he ISN"T something because the default is that he does not does have those properties. The starting point is that Barney is not good (lacking good) and if barney wants to be better than that then he has to prove it - I dont need to prove the default.
Created:
Posted in:
what evidence has he provided to be "good". The four debates he provided which I debunked?? The win streak which I charge as invalid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Name one example you cited of another debater being better at analysis than I? You even dropped that the best debaters directly emulate my style.
I don't need to cite another debater to prove that you have mediocre analysis abilities. we start by assuming you are not good (chaos state) and then you provided four debates to prove you have good analysis and then I debunked them, hence putting you back into the starting point of not good. I don't need to cite people who have better analysis than you though I easily can (mr Chris, novice by a long shot, bones, whiteflames)
I dropped the fact that people emulated your style frankly because I ran out of words and there are far more important factors to address. And also, this argument is secondary, if I can prove directly that you lack the capacity for being a good debater, then I win, as I did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I won source points for an overwhelming amount of evidence in comparison to you.
Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
- 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).
Oops! Hey Barney, for most of us, the leaderboard the hall of fame are pretty common sense, though you yourself may struggle to understand. I could have easily linked every debater i mentioned, sourced a dictinoary for every word I typed and linked emotional data on childrens dying but I didn't. It really does look like you might win purely on luck - first from voters who are nutjobs and second from sources. But we all know who the big hitter voters are and they all have my back, so cry on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
How do you feel about the votes which have been casted for you, in particular the ones which deducted a source point. Do you think you deserve a source point for linking voters to the site leaderboard and your profile?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It's fine if you want to argue that voters should consider "STRONG responses" to the reasoning they use that are present in the debate. It honestly does look like both Public-Choice and K_Michael did, at least from what I'm seeing here. They just don't see that those responses move the needle. You may not like their perspectives on the matter, but they appear to have done it. It's not the place of moderation to do more than assess whether their votes were sufficient, and based on everything I've said so far and taking into account all of your reasons for being against it, they are still sufficient.
Look I can see you clearly have bias against me. I'm NOT saying the voter should look at my strong arguments, I AM SAYING THAT VOTERS SHOULD LOOK AT A REBUTTAL I PROPOSE. Again, this is like saying "I posed the Kalam cosmological argument and as the problem of does not refute it I win" ALL WHILST IGNORING MY OPPOENTS REFUTATION TO THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. I don't see how this is difficult to understand - Barney makes claim X. I refute with not X. Voter says that Y does not refute X ALL WHILST IGNORING NOT X.
The votes which were put in were terrible. From the conduct point to the argument point, they ignore my argument. Look I get that you hate me and want to protect barney, but this is just fucking unfair towards me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Purely out of curiosity, who actually wrote your R1 arguments? And no, clearly I do not believe you did that datamining in under 3 hours.
Oh that's very interesting. You obviously think I'm stupid, which means that you doubting that I wrote my own argument implies that you think my argument is not stupid! Thanks for the compliment! Though you may find it difficult to write 5000 characters in 3 hours, I find it to be quite manageable, although I do have a normal IQ so that may be the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It is sufficient for a voter to look at the description and, where they are not extrapolating or adding something that is not clearly present, to determine whether what is there restricts the debate.
Again, someone could do that to argue against me in god. "omnipotence and omnibenevolence are tautologically not compatible. therefore nothing the instigator says would have worked". This counts as not "extrapolating or adding something that is clearly not present" because we are using only two words and also logic to show a tautological impossibility. Of course, there are STRONG responses against this line of reasoning, and I am arguing that when are voting, we MUST look at responses ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Barney used statistics to demonstrate how highly rated he is compared to most debaters.
I also said why those statistics aren't good (preemptively mind you).
I also provided my own statistics, which I made positive arguments for why they are better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
In your case, the voters reference the description and view what is stated there as a clear limitation on what evidence is pertinent to the debate.
But the "clear limitation" clearly expresses that the voter has already made an argument. This would be like if someone made a debate about God defining him as "all loving" and "all powerful", for the opponent to say "well from the description these two properties are not compatible therefore I don't need to look at any relavant rebuttals the instigator may have made because this is a reasonable interpretation". obviously, this is an atheist perspective which can be contested, but thats the key word - CAN BE CONTESTED. You can't just say "oh well the voter looked at it and called it a day by just judging the description", especially I made a clear and substantial argument against said interpretation which constituted HALF of my argument.
It's not an argument given in the debate by your opponent, it's effectively being treated as a rule that precedes any discussion by the debaters.
Again, this "rule" only applies when the voter bends backwards to interpret it as such. I clearly showed why such an interpretation is not valid through a huge chunk of my argument. My problem isn't that I think the vote is neccesarly wrong, just that it does not even MENTION AT ALL my refutation of the interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
While trying to prove Barney is a terrible debater,
Already wrong, I'm just proving that he is not a good debater. So you already show your misunderstanding.
If you didn't want "only DebateArt" to be considered then you shouldn't have said that.
I made the argument that definitions we use are universal. When I used the words "is not" in the resolution, I meant them as per their definition in a normal dictionary. Likewise, the term "debater" is also used as per normal definitions (note that Barney never actually contest this so you are making arguments for him).
our OPENING ARGUMENT is using debate metrics PROVIDED BY DEBATEART.COM.
Nope, just like how if I were to ask "are you a good public speaker" I am using the COMMON DEFINTIONS OF public speaker - it is the opponents burden to prove that the definition of good public speaker is "someone who is in the top percentile for this given website. Again, saying "we only consider debate art" CLEARLY indicates we are only using debate art as a source of evidence to draw upon, especially since the second half of the sentence was "we do not consider DDO".
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.
Again, I really want you to read this, because I think it will clear things up.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@K_Michael
@Public-Choice
Please read and give honest thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
Please read the entire thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Despite what you may think of me, I implore you all to read this post, as I seriously think it poses a significant issue which should be solved. This is serious - I know many of you may not like me, but this is an issue which effects all debaters and the integrity of this site.
In my recent debate, the following vote was provided
- 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....
The bolded shows the pivotal thing which made the voter vote for the Negative side. However, this was refuted in the second round (you don't need to read it if you don't want to, just know that it is there and quite substantial (for a debate of 5,000 characters, this is quite a substantial part of the argument).
- 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 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. This means that CON better followed the debate's structure than PRO and therefore has won the debate. The question was never "is Barney and OBJECTIVELY good debater" (according to the description), but if Barney's performance on DebateArt is good, since the description blatantly states that DebateArt will be considered.
It seems clear that a he solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments. Keep this in mind.
Another vote which was casted against me was based on the following.
- ... CON unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) 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.
Notice how the voter mentions ONLY a single argument which was a 760 characters placed at the argument which I took care in saying was a kritik which was *cheeky*. It seems clear then that the voter solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments.
Now this is the most important bit. In Oromagi's recent debate, a vote was removed for the following reason.
While the voter does assess some points presented in the debate, he solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments. This specific point may be the most important one in the debate, but the voter cannot simply say that without touching upon the responses to it.
Is it not clear that there is a double standard in play? The two votes clearly violate what Whiteflames says! They don't focus on arguments Pro debated, and does not engage with responses from Pro!
There is a clear bias on this site. When it comes to defending Oromagi, the moderators will enact their "reason". When it is used to defend Barney, opposing reason is imployed to protect him.
Created:
Posted in:
'Personhood' was pivotal in that debate.
no it wasn't the debate was about whether slavery can include animals, or at least that was 95 percent of orosadmis' case
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You are acting like a spoiled entitled brat. Notice how you only put people that voted with you as people with the correct votes.
novice and I for the matter could easily say why bones and undefeatables votes are good - that they address the given arguments. On the other hand, it is also easy to say that barney's vote, which digresses into "abortion" and "personhood", neither of which were pivotal in the debate to hinge their vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think Novice lost badly by any objective standard for rational debate but he won the popular vote anyway.
ohhh so when the biased votes go in your favour, you are fine, but when they swing against you, suddenly they are in proper? for someone who always clowns on those who disagree with the US election being a democractic process, thhis complaint about the veracity of voting is quite funny
tell me exactly what you found wrong about Bones (better than you in debating) and Undefeatable (better than you in debating)'s vote. otherwise, shush up with your complaint
Created:
Posted in:
meanwhile CNN is firing all its people before the great reset happens.
Created:
Posted in:
I vote for The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery because it is just oh so funny to think orodasmi sadly contemplating how he could lose to someone he so despises, and who he c constantly bullies.
I also vote THBT: On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal. because it displays the utter liberalism in this site, where the plethora of voters against bones was utter bullshit.
I vote Novice_II as the user because I know all the major players truly hate him. also, when novice gets into the hall of fame, I would love to see barney or orosadmi write something nice about him.
Created:
as the bible teaches, the world we live on is flat. there are many videos of "rockets" lifitng off however there is always a "bounce" effect, where the rocket ship goes up then down like a balloon (hence it being the balloon theory). his is it that this thousand pound rocket can bounce about? the moon landings are fake fake and nasa is a sham.
Created:
Posted in:
Premise 1:Bible decides what is rightPremise 2:Bible decided that Bible is rightPremise 3:Bible decided it is right that Bible decidesConclusion:Bible is always right.
absolutely fantastic. as I have argued elsewhere, god is what allows for logic, so all atheists are invoking god to reject god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
nothing to say about this billion dollar fine ay?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Dr. Anthony Fauci: (59:49) Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:01:43) I don’t favor gain-of-function research in China. You are saying things that are not correct.
- Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:03:20) I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I’m fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again, the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:04:10) I fully agree that you should investigate where the virus came from. But again, we have not funded gain-of-function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.
- Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:05:00) Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to say, I don’t know how many times I can say it, Madam Chair, we did not fund gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
ohhhhh so nowww you want to quote Fauci when he isn't contradicting himself and admitting to having millions from vaccines.
Created:
That guy has spamvoted for Novice over and over,
the votes were fine - they were removed because the moderators have issue with novice and wish to derail him. the votes were against mall the noob - novice clearly won them.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
notice how I said not banned from voting. lmao?????
Created:
clearly there is a bias.
Best Korea had a bad vote against a leftist Oromagi. he got banned from voting
FLRW had a vote against a right wing view. he was not banned from voting
is this not clear? Wake up from the matrix
Created:
Posted in:
why are you always voting for your own stuff which no one else seems to care about? This is is egocentric - please have some humility
Created:
Posted in:
I nominate
it shows the corruption of this site, and also the embarrassing downfall of a highly inflated ego - morally mompoys person, who was funnily brought down. I still wonder if Oromagi thinks about this painful loss to his foe, who he has in more than one occasion insulted. Honestly, he probs thinks he should have won, but of course this would be a deception fueled by people patting his ego down.
Created:
Blaming everyone else for the fact you got destroyed in a debate and lashing out emotionally rather than being a cool-headed masculine strategist in the face of said defeat.
yeah ok so you are telling me about how to act after losing? Hey, you might have a hundred loses, but that doesn't mean you are good at taking losses, as this community well knows...
Created:
well do you know what a joke is?? I can joke about the Holocaust or 9/11 (as Issac Butterman did quite funnily) without actually disliking the group. You find the joke vile, which means I've elicited a reaction which means ive done what I am supposed to. you are just like this super woke self victimising people who can't stand a joke from Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan - its just a JOKE man, Im religious and hate abortion.
Created:
you think im posing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
when we think of top ten debaters, no one thinks of you lmao.
Created:
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHOEVER REPORTED THE POST AND GOT COCK BLOCKED TO NO EVIAL. HOW DOES IT FEEL YOU CANCELLING LEFTIE LOONIE, I BET YOUR MOTHER WISH SHE HAD A PEROID INSTEAD OF YOU
Created:
-->
@Barney
well you've had a long streak which is coming to an end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
This puts me comfortably in the top 10%, though I consider it pretty bad.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I can't tell if you are serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
After two of my votes were reported and removed, I just figured I had no idea how voting worked on this site because I am newer and only ever voted on DDO
yup this is apparent
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
see so not bareney
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
please read: THE REAL ANTHONY FAUCI. it is truly a great book you should actually read it maybe you wont worship him anymore.
Created: