"Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement."
I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds. That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counter arguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises.
"My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on."
The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out.
""I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them.""
That's actually what I did
"Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site"
well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either.
" you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. "
Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues.
"you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular. "
I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high.
"you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you."
You literally forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up.
"The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect"
That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect.
" if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements."
If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve.
"That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect."
Saying an argument is bad is a statement of fact. Intelligence being high or low is not a value statement. Still, it really shows somebody's character when they think mentally disabled people are bad and they are offended by being called one. You wouldn't be offended if you thought somebody with a mental disability was equal to you.
I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off. Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood. Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me. Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me.
"You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve"
I did not say this
" However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice."
Give me the minute mark on the criticism video where I bullied
"It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me"
I wish you knew how much it pisses me off when I speak clearly and am not understood. It makes me feel as if there is something wrong with the way my brain works and like I am crazy tbh.
I will personally add, I feel like I have failed as a voter if I do not have criticisms that can help those on both sides of the debate improve. If they are a better debater than me, the least I can do is potentially point out flaws in their arguments they have missed so they can specifically improve that argument.
Not a hard rebuttable, you failed. I know you are like "I could have destroyed you easily" but if that were true you wouldn't have gotten scared and forfeited https://youtu.be/EWjKyqjYrCo
you do know that intelligent people can be bad at debating right? You are asking me not to insult your IQ while failing to realize things like smart people can be terrible at debate
the average IQ is 100, so if I say your IQ is below 120 it doesn't mean you are below average, besides I never directly stated it and I merely mentioned it and moved on. It is not irrelevant because it could win me a conduct point
I argued for why I should get a conduct point. I am allowed to argue you have a low IQ if it is relevant to the debate. You saw the debate rules when you accepted
I listed high IQ. I mentioned most high IQ people would not struggle with this but that it is possible that an outlier who has high IQ could potentially struggle with this, despite their high IQ. I did not say you had a high IQ. I said it was possible you have a high IQ. the possibility of having high IQ is different than actually having high IQ
Okay let me explain this in a different way, tell me specifically where you are struggling and I will move on from there.
"“Imagine you have two toys, and both are broken. One toy has a small crack, but it still works a little bit. The other toy is smashed to pieces and can’t be played with at all. Both toys are bad because they’re broken, but the one with the small crack is still better because you can play with it a little. So, even though they’re both bad, one is not as bad as the other.”
I assumed Barney would ignore me so I asked chat GPT other reasons besides low IQ that could explain why somebody would struggle to understand the concept of bad things being disproportionately bad in relation to each other and here is what chat gpt said
There could be several reasons why someone might struggle to understand that two bad things can be on different levels of severity, even beyond intelligence or IQ. Here are some possibilities:
Cognitive Biases: People might have cognitive biases, like black-and-white thinking, where they view things as all good or all bad, without nuance or gradation.
Emotional Involvement: If the person has a strong emotional response to the subject, it can cloud their judgment and make it difficult for them to see different levels of severity.
Lack of Context or Experience: Without prior experience or context, it can be hard for some people to grasp the concept of comparative badness, especially if they haven’t encountered similar situations before.
Communication Style: Sometimes, the way information is communicated can influence understanding. If the explanation wasn’t clear or aligned with their learning style, they might not grasp the concept.
Fixed Mindset: People with a fixed mindset might struggle with complex or nuanced concepts, preferring simple, clear-cut answers.
Defensiveness: The person might feel defensive or protective about their views or choices, which can make them resistant to considering the idea of comparative badness.
Cultural or Social Influences: Cultural norms or social influences can shape how people perceive and evaluate situations. In some cultures, gradations of badness might not be as emphasized as in others.
Psychological Factors: Conditions like anxiety or depression can impact cognitive processing, making it harder to engage with complex or nuanced ideas.
Time or Stress: If the person is under time pressure or stress, it can hinder their ability to process new information thoroughly.
Understanding these potential factors can help in finding better ways to communicate and bridge the gap in comprehension.
"There can be plenty of reasons why he's not getting your point that don't require you to assume his IQ."
Well PM me those reasons if you can because I can only think of 3 and none seem likely.
1. He is not very bright
2. He is a non native english speaker
3. I am retarded and though me saying that 2 bad things can be different levels of bad, perhaps this is tard logic and only makes sense to me because I am retarded.
I can grant that number 3 is an option because I have had no outsider verification that the logic two bad things can be seperate levels of bad, I find it unlikely. His user name makes me think he is probably a native english speaker, so I am out of options. Usually I consider a range of options and pick the most likely one as my working theory
"So first statement is I never addressed Cons arguments."
I think I said you didn't adequately address his relevant arguments
" Then you change your claim to say that I DID address Cons arguments and its BECAUSE I did in fact do so that it was irrelevant and stupid of me to do."
You failed to adequately address his relevant arguments and focused on rebuttals for red herrings. Both can be true. Not sure why this is hard to understand
This guy still cannot grasp the concept that a shitty argument can be better that an even shittier argument. HOw am I expected to respond to that refusal to acknowledge that there can be different levels of bad, something easily grasped by anyone with an IQ over 80
"To be honest with you bro. The whole reason this comment section turned into a flame war was because WyIted admitted that he wasn't voting within the farmwork of the criteria. He said that your argument was "Shitty and wrong" But gave you the better argument vote "
How stupid does a person have to be to not understand there are different levels of shitty and I was forced to choose between a turd sandwich vs douche.
If the best possible argument is a 10 and bad arguments are any number below 6 than I can say an argument that ranks 3 is shitty but still superior to one that ranks 1. You are simultaneously bitching that I called you stupid, while simultaneously not realizing that both sides of an argument can be bad. This is not something that would confuse most people with a 3 digit IQ.
"His video might have been something else. "
Wow you are still too evil to watch the video and know what I said. I have no ideal how you plan to win the next debate while refusing to watch videos
"Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists."
These guys get a lot of hate because of the worst people who identify as incel like elliot Rodgers. Their communities when viewed by outsiders often do have people in the anger phase expressing some hatred towards women and Chads, but those are normally people introduced into those communities early. Typically the more mature users will take 2 possible roads.
road 1- Black pill
They realize that they are ugly or their personality is ugly and they just try to live life by focusing on their own well being and not worrying so much about getting laid.
road 2- looks maxxers
These people will start trying to minimize their unattractiveness. They will buy shoes with lifts, try to strengthen their jaw so they are not chincels, tan, workout and
Sadly we are seeing a 3rd and more rare group emerge, and they are new so I don't want to comment too much, but they are trans maxxers. They think women have an easier time getting laid and have life on easy mode, so they start transitioning to get all of those advantages.
I do struggle with MRA's.. I think they do overboard but I also reached out to some groups when my first child was essentially kidnapped by the mother and kept away from me. Ultimately when this happens usually the women get away with it and if the shoe was on the other foot than I would be in prison. I won full custody of my first son but was still out of his life for about a decade, and I am in contact with him again but kind of have to play the part of the reformed bad guy because if I tell him the truth about his mother than obviously he will side with her and push me away even more. So these groups do act like the male version of feminests and start crying about stupid shit like their being very few or almost no battered men's shelters. So despite their usefulness on some things they are essentially the male version of feminests and so they are just as stupid as feminists for the most part.
I think the term you are looking for is tradcons
"I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors"
She seemed like an ethical egoist to me. To me the heroes just wanted a society where they could profit from their own work and be generally unimpeded in improving society and the villains varied . You had the common man who was evil for wanting to just exist with a low level of resistance or contribution, then you had politicians who would take advantage of those impulses to propel themselves upward. The real badguys were the other industrialists though. Her brother dated a girl because he felt sorry for her. When she found out that he didn't love her because he saw greatness within, she killed herself. Another badguy was a lobbiest who used the government to break up monopolies and to win contracts to make his company bigger with disasterous results. The good guys did act in an egoist way but seemed to be more motivated by justice than a comfortable lifestyle. Dagny Taggert could have lived a relatively carefree life and been in the lap of luxury, but instead of dealing with an evil government she steps away from society to be a simple laborer. So the philosophy is a philosophy of egoism, but the characters were motivated more by making sure the philosophy was practiced on a large scale than they did even for their own good. Their personal actions were almost the opposite of their ideology, because they did fight for a higher good.
"20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward. "
I understand and have used the strategy myself LOL
"That was not one of pro’s best moments."
Yes, he had the seeds to defeat you, but just failed to capitalize
"I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit."
I wanted to look into this but the debate was so long I just shut it out of my mind kind of immediately.
You literally called my intelligence or my honor into question with your stupid take on my vote and you did not watch the video which outlines the voter better. So if you agree with whiteflame it makes you a hypocrite
I am a utilitarian, which means I value your well being over your feelings. It is important that you stay in your wheelhouse to get the best outcomes in life. I would hate for you to squander what little potential you have. I love you
Retard is a medical term to mean lower IQ. Not sure why you would be offended by it. Would you prefer to be called special or Intellectually disabled? I do not intend to offend
Autistic people are generally good with logic, reasoning and systemizing. I would hate for you to believe that you are high functioning and then lose a lot of money pursuing a STEM degree when a trade would be more suitable. I am looking out for your best interests. Maybe you are autistic but high functioning is incorrect. You are nowhere even close to being like Sheldon
Why are you offended by the word retard. Its okay to be a retard. I am not trying to be offensive by letting you know that. You can confirm it with an IQ test if you want. It's not meant to be offensive. We are equal in God's eyes. I am no better than you just because I am a genius and you are a retard. Genius is not an insult towards myself either, just a word that means exceptionally high IQ
"ly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced-kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery.""
He pointed out that she does work for the benefit of another and it is unpaid and pointed out that loopholes like "not officially owning people" are not objections to it being slavery. The definition you provided also does not say that you have to be owned by the people enslaving you. This stuff was addressed and shot down
I am not calling you a retard as an insult. There is nothing wrong with being a retard. I married one. It's important that you know if you are one so you know what is a waste of your time to pursue. I would urge you to learn a trade like plumbing or electrician and to avoid STEM degrees and since any degree that is not a STEM degree is a waste of money, you should not waste money on college. You can live a fulfilling life but only if you recognize your limits. Also entrepenuership, daytrading and other similar dreams that involve thinking well are also off the table.
It doesn't make you a bad person, but the quality of your life will be compromised by trying to use your brain to make money or even decisions. Trust the experts and please keep voting republican, we also welcome votes from the low end of the bell curve as well.
"Why would I agree? Con's entire point was to say that Abortion has been legal for over 250 years. I, someone who is saying the opposite, can't agree with that point. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. First, you said Con's arguments were shity but you gave it to him because I did not address his arguments. Now you're saying that just addressing a point was
stupid."
Because you could have agreed with 90% of what he said and merely focused on his slavery syllogism and still win. You are not getting that Barney knows his arguments could be easily defeated. That is why he through out so many red herrings. Read his other debates. He defeated you because you allowed his red herrings to actually be effective
"gain, the criteria asks, "Better argument" Not, "Shity argument," For you to vote within the rules. you have either vote and explain how one side made the better argument to you and thats why you voted for them. What you said so far was that I made promising arguments and in contrast Con made bad ones but you voted for them anyway. Now your saying the opposite and the Con made the less "shity argument." clearly define who made the better argument or admit that your not convinced by either and do not vote."
No you dropped your own positive argument, allowed him to control the definition of slavery. That means essentially that his arguments were not thoroughly addresses and yours were not thoroughly made. I gave my full decision and you can watch the video but I summarized it below as follows;
"Pro dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional . Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
"Again, you are demonstrating that you did not fully understand the arguments. My argument was the Abortion was not Constitutional because the Constitution did not include it and recent Supreme Court cases ruled in favor of that view. Con argued that Abortion was a legal practice for 250 years and that the supreme court is ruled by cultists who hate women, later on we argued over the rights women had and wither abortion is slavery or not. "
This is why you are a retard. Con says the supreme court is ruled by cultists, and you bite and argue against that irrelevant point, He argues that they hate women and you bite and argue against that relevant point. he argues that it was legal 250 years ago and you bite on that irrelevant red herring. He argues that it is slavery and you allow him to define slavery in a stupid way and your rebuttal is essentially "Nuh uh"
dumb just dumb, here is his argument
p1- slavery is unconstitutional
p2- abortion is slavery
C- abortion is unonstitutional
That's a precise logical argument. You agreed with premise one. You agreed with the structure of his syllogism. you challenged him on premise 2 but he said that mothers do work for the benefit of their unborn child without pay. You never contradicted that working for others for no pay and being forced to do so is slavery. You merely said shit like "People don't mean abortion when they say slavery". That's not good enough to defeat the argument. You have to challenge his definition of slavery and it's not particularly hard to do. I mentioned a thought experiment when reading the debate out loud that had the potential to counter his definition or understanding of the definition. You are being stubborn and refusing to learn from your mistakes. WHich is sad, it means that you will be defeated with somebody who merely just steals Barney's arguments.
"Uh, that may be what the topic is about. But the point I made about the law of 1820 is a counterargument to Con's claim that abortion was not illegal for 250 years. See, you do not even properly evolute the argument before you decide."
Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it
"First of all, you don't know snoop Dog. Secondly, you just said that the topic is about abortion and its constitutional presence or lack their off. NOW, you are saying that your vote is based on how slavery was defined, which is both not the topic and a point you yourself said was, "Stupid and wrong." I clearly rebuttaled Abortion of slavery being the same withe abortion serveral times. This just confirms you are not voteing fairly."
Your rebuttals failed, and you have not watched my video to figure out why, so that is your problem. Slavery is relevant because both pro and con agreed it was unconstitutional
""Con's arguments for abortion equaling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments." Okay, so that means, that at no point you found Con's argument convincing. and that is the better argument the Criteria vote is meant to be based on."
You seem to be forgetting that the better argument can be shitty as though less shitty than the worst argument.
". I don't get Wylted's claim of me dropping promising arguments."
After the early part of the debate you hinted at the correct arguments to defeat con, particularly by briefly mentioning that judges determine the constitutionality of something, not the document itself. Even with Barney trying to avoid addressing this argument you just didn't pick up on the fact you had the seeds of a positive argument that could defeat him and make no mistake you needed a positive argument to win in order to win the debate given the burden split.
"Firstly, you should put that in your vote. secondly, what you said was vague and makes no sense. You admit that the argument Con made was, "Wong and stupid" in other words did not convince you, which is what the better argument is supposed to be about. Yet, you still vote for Con because I went for red herrings instead of addressing Con's arguments."
The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me.
"By the way, claiming that I did not address the cons arguments is false. When he said Abortion was a traditional legal practice for over 250 years. I countered with sources proving that anti-abortion laws had existed since 1820. When Con tried saying that A woman can be sent to jail for the rest of her life for abortion, I pointed out that only applied to a specific state."
The debate is about whether abortion is constitutional or not. It is irrelevant what people in 1820 thought.
"Most damming of all, when Con tried saying abortion was slavery thanks to the 13th Amendment, I quoted and referenced several sources debunking this very idea. "
I had Snoop Dog read your arguments to me and I heard your rebuttals. What I was looking at is how slavery was defined. You didn't present a legal definition of slavery which had you done so, would have debunked him. You let him get away with a lot. I think it should reveal a lot to you that I disagree vehemently with his side and still was not biased enough to vote in your favor. I would recommend watching my whole video, but at least the last 10 minutes or so and then learning from it.
I have no problem ever shrinking my main points down for feedback from judges or anyone who cannot use youtube. I will ask that they ask for reasoning shortly after my judgement as my memory is shit and I could forget why I placed even a recent vote
reasoning; Pro dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional . Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments.
SMV is important but to think it is the only consideration of every single woman alive, is silly
That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis
will look into it.
"Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement."
I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds. That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counter arguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises.
"My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on."
The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out.
""I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them.""
That's actually what I did
"Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site"
well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either.
" you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. "
Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues.
"you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular. "
I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high.
"you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you."
You literally forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up.
"The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect"
That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect.
" if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements."
If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve.
"That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect."
Saying an argument is bad is a statement of fact. Intelligence being high or low is not a value statement. Still, it really shows somebody's character when they think mentally disabled people are bad and they are offended by being called one. You wouldn't be offended if you thought somebody with a mental disability was equal to you.
I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off. Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood. Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me. Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me.
"You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve"
I did not say this
" However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice."
Give me the minute mark on the criticism video where I bullied
"It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me"
I wish you knew how much it pisses me off when I speak clearly and am not understood. It makes me feel as if there is something wrong with the way my brain works and like I am crazy tbh.
I used to think a lot about a book called blowback or some similar title that argued the same point.
I will personally add, I feel like I have failed as a voter if I do not have criticisms that can help those on both sides of the debate improve. If they are a better debater than me, the least I can do is potentially point out flaws in their arguments they have missed so they can specifically improve that argument.
This is a great topic. I look forward to reading it
I gave a rebuttle for my own argument. Maybe you can learn something https://youtu.be/EWjKyqjYrCo
Not a hard rebuttable, you failed. I know you are like "I could have destroyed you easily" but if that were true you wouldn't have gotten scared and forfeited https://youtu.be/EWjKyqjYrCo
https://youtu.be/EWjKyqjYrCo
you do know that intelligent people can be bad at debating right? You are asking me not to insult your IQ while failing to realize things like smart people can be terrible at debate
the average IQ is 100, so if I say your IQ is below 120 it doesn't mean you are below average, besides I never directly stated it and I merely mentioned it and moved on. It is not irrelevant because it could win me a conduct point
If not than good luck in your next debate. Looking forward to seeing you around
I argued for why I should get a conduct point. I am allowed to argue you have a low IQ if it is relevant to the debate. You saw the debate rules when you accepted
Ban this guy for reporting me for expressing frustration that he literally aceoted this debate k owing he was going to forfeit.
Sorry for calling you too shitty too defeat me when you quite literally have decided to forfeit because you are too shitty to defeat me
You knew you sucked too much to defeat me, not sure why you bothered to accept.
I would look at "Pascal's mugging" for a rebuttal if you feel like putting up a fight
Lol
let me guess. You are going to forfeit your round because you can't come up with a good argument against me
fine
I listed high IQ. I mentioned most high IQ people would not struggle with this but that it is possible that an outlier who has high IQ could potentially struggle with this, despite their high IQ. I did not say you had a high IQ. I said it was possible you have a high IQ. the possibility of having high IQ is different than actually having high IQ
Okay let me explain this in a different way, tell me specifically where you are struggling and I will move on from there.
"“Imagine you have two toys, and both are broken. One toy has a small crack, but it still works a little bit. The other toy is smashed to pieces and can’t be played with at all. Both toys are bad because they’re broken, but the one with the small crack is still better because you can play with it a little. So, even though they’re both bad, one is not as bad as the other.”
I assumed Barney would ignore me so I asked chat GPT other reasons besides low IQ that could explain why somebody would struggle to understand the concept of bad things being disproportionately bad in relation to each other and here is what chat gpt said
There could be several reasons why someone might struggle to understand that two bad things can be on different levels of severity, even beyond intelligence or IQ. Here are some possibilities:
Cognitive Biases: People might have cognitive biases, like black-and-white thinking, where they view things as all good or all bad, without nuance or gradation.
Emotional Involvement: If the person has a strong emotional response to the subject, it can cloud their judgment and make it difficult for them to see different levels of severity.
Lack of Context or Experience: Without prior experience or context, it can be hard for some people to grasp the concept of comparative badness, especially if they haven’t encountered similar situations before.
Communication Style: Sometimes, the way information is communicated can influence understanding. If the explanation wasn’t clear or aligned with their learning style, they might not grasp the concept.
Fixed Mindset: People with a fixed mindset might struggle with complex or nuanced concepts, preferring simple, clear-cut answers.
Defensiveness: The person might feel defensive or protective about their views or choices, which can make them resistant to considering the idea of comparative badness.
Cultural or Social Influences: Cultural norms or social influences can shape how people perceive and evaluate situations. In some cultures, gradations of badness might not be as emphasized as in others.
Psychological Factors: Conditions like anxiety or depression can impact cognitive processing, making it harder to engage with complex or nuanced ideas.
Time or Stress: If the person is under time pressure or stress, it can hinder their ability to process new information thoroughly.
Understanding these potential factors can help in finding better ways to communicate and bridge the gap in comprehension.
Gifted means High IQ, LOL.
I cannot believe this. It's too good
"There can be plenty of reasons why he's not getting your point that don't require you to assume his IQ."
Well PM me those reasons if you can because I can only think of 3 and none seem likely.
1. He is not very bright
2. He is a non native english speaker
3. I am retarded and though me saying that 2 bad things can be different levels of bad, perhaps this is tard logic and only makes sense to me because I am retarded.
I can grant that number 3 is an option because I have had no outsider verification that the logic two bad things can be seperate levels of bad, I find it unlikely. His user name makes me think he is probably a native english speaker, so I am out of options. Usually I consider a range of options and pick the most likely one as my working theory
I did say most people with a 3 digit IQ this time, so we know that there are exceptions. Maybe he is gifted but an outlier
"So first statement is I never addressed Cons arguments."
I think I said you didn't adequately address his relevant arguments
" Then you change your claim to say that I DID address Cons arguments and its BECAUSE I did in fact do so that it was irrelevant and stupid of me to do."
You failed to adequately address his relevant arguments and focused on rebuttals for red herrings. Both can be true. Not sure why this is hard to understand
This guy still cannot grasp the concept that a shitty argument can be better that an even shittier argument. HOw am I expected to respond to that refusal to acknowledge that there can be different levels of bad, something easily grasped by anyone with an IQ over 80
"To be honest with you bro. The whole reason this comment section turned into a flame war was because WyIted admitted that he wasn't voting within the farmwork of the criteria. He said that your argument was "Shitty and wrong" But gave you the better argument vote "
How stupid does a person have to be to not understand there are different levels of shitty and I was forced to choose between a turd sandwich vs douche.
If the best possible argument is a 10 and bad arguments are any number below 6 than I can say an argument that ranks 3 is shitty but still superior to one that ranks 1. You are simultaneously bitching that I called you stupid, while simultaneously not realizing that both sides of an argument can be bad. This is not something that would confuse most people with a 3 digit IQ.
"His video might have been something else. "
Wow you are still too evil to watch the video and know what I said. I have no ideal how you plan to win the next debate while refusing to watch videos
"Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists."
These guys get a lot of hate because of the worst people who identify as incel like elliot Rodgers. Their communities when viewed by outsiders often do have people in the anger phase expressing some hatred towards women and Chads, but those are normally people introduced into those communities early. Typically the more mature users will take 2 possible roads.
road 1- Black pill
They realize that they are ugly or their personality is ugly and they just try to live life by focusing on their own well being and not worrying so much about getting laid.
road 2- looks maxxers
These people will start trying to minimize their unattractiveness. They will buy shoes with lifts, try to strengthen their jaw so they are not chincels, tan, workout and
Sadly we are seeing a 3rd and more rare group emerge, and they are new so I don't want to comment too much, but they are trans maxxers. They think women have an easier time getting laid and have life on easy mode, so they start transitioning to get all of those advantages.
I do struggle with MRA's.. I think they do overboard but I also reached out to some groups when my first child was essentially kidnapped by the mother and kept away from me. Ultimately when this happens usually the women get away with it and if the shoe was on the other foot than I would be in prison. I won full custody of my first son but was still out of his life for about a decade, and I am in contact with him again but kind of have to play the part of the reformed bad guy because if I tell him the truth about his mother than obviously he will side with her and push me away even more. So these groups do act like the male version of feminests and start crying about stupid shit like their being very few or almost no battered men's shelters. So despite their usefulness on some things they are essentially the male version of feminests and so they are just as stupid as feminists for the most part.
I think the term you are looking for is tradcons
"I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors"
She seemed like an ethical egoist to me. To me the heroes just wanted a society where they could profit from their own work and be generally unimpeded in improving society and the villains varied . You had the common man who was evil for wanting to just exist with a low level of resistance or contribution, then you had politicians who would take advantage of those impulses to propel themselves upward. The real badguys were the other industrialists though. Her brother dated a girl because he felt sorry for her. When she found out that he didn't love her because he saw greatness within, she killed herself. Another badguy was a lobbiest who used the government to break up monopolies and to win contracts to make his company bigger with disasterous results. The good guys did act in an egoist way but seemed to be more motivated by justice than a comfortable lifestyle. Dagny Taggert could have lived a relatively carefree life and been in the lap of luxury, but instead of dealing with an evil government she steps away from society to be a simple laborer. So the philosophy is a philosophy of egoism, but the characters were motivated more by making sure the philosophy was practiced on a large scale than they did even for their own good. Their personal actions were almost the opposite of their ideology, because they did fight for a higher good.
"20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward. "
I understand and have used the strategy myself LOL
"That was not one of pro’s best moments."
Yes, he had the seeds to defeat you, but just failed to capitalize
"I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit."
I wanted to look into this but the debate was so long I just shut it out of my mind kind of immediately.
"particularly those aimed towards one person's intellectual capacities?"
As somebody who was in LD classes, I don't see it as being insulting to point out when I encounter a fellow on my intellectual level
You literally called my intelligence or my honor into question with your stupid take on my vote and you did not watch the video which outlines the voter better. So if you agree with whiteflame it makes you a hypocrite
I am a utilitarian, which means I value your well being over your feelings. It is important that you stay in your wheelhouse to get the best outcomes in life. I would hate for you to squander what little potential you have. I love you
Retard is a medical term to mean lower IQ. Not sure why you would be offended by it. Would you prefer to be called special or Intellectually disabled? I do not intend to offend
Autistic people are generally good with logic, reasoning and systemizing. I would hate for you to believe that you are high functioning and then lose a lot of money pursuing a STEM degree when a trade would be more suitable. I am looking out for your best interests. Maybe you are autistic but high functioning is incorrect. You are nowhere even close to being like Sheldon
Why are you offended by the word retard. Its okay to be a retard. I am not trying to be offensive by letting you know that. You can confirm it with an IQ test if you want. It's not meant to be offensive. We are equal in God's eyes. I am no better than you just because I am a genius and you are a retard. Genius is not an insult towards myself either, just a word that means exceptionally high IQ
"ly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced-kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery.""
He pointed out that she does work for the benefit of another and it is unpaid and pointed out that loopholes like "not officially owning people" are not objections to it being slavery. The definition you provided also does not say that you have to be owned by the people enslaving you. This stuff was addressed and shot down
I am not calling you a retard as an insult. There is nothing wrong with being a retard. I married one. It's important that you know if you are one so you know what is a waste of your time to pursue. I would urge you to learn a trade like plumbing or electrician and to avoid STEM degrees and since any degree that is not a STEM degree is a waste of money, you should not waste money on college. You can live a fulfilling life but only if you recognize your limits. Also entrepenuership, daytrading and other similar dreams that involve thinking well are also off the table.
It doesn't make you a bad person, but the quality of your life will be compromised by trying to use your brain to make money or even decisions. Trust the experts and please keep voting republican, we also welcome votes from the low end of the bell curve as well.
"Why would I agree? Con's entire point was to say that Abortion has been legal for over 250 years. I, someone who is saying the opposite, can't agree with that point. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. First, you said Con's arguments were shity but you gave it to him because I did not address his arguments. Now you're saying that just addressing a point was
stupid."
Because you could have agreed with 90% of what he said and merely focused on his slavery syllogism and still win. You are not getting that Barney knows his arguments could be easily defeated. That is why he through out so many red herrings. Read his other debates. He defeated you because you allowed his red herrings to actually be effective
"gain, the criteria asks, "Better argument" Not, "Shity argument," For you to vote within the rules. you have either vote and explain how one side made the better argument to you and thats why you voted for them. What you said so far was that I made promising arguments and in contrast Con made bad ones but you voted for them anyway. Now your saying the opposite and the Con made the less "shity argument." clearly define who made the better argument or admit that your not convinced by either and do not vote."
No you dropped your own positive argument, allowed him to control the definition of slavery. That means essentially that his arguments were not thoroughly addresses and yours were not thoroughly made. I gave my full decision and you can watch the video but I summarized it below as follows;
"Pro dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional . Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
"Again, you are demonstrating that you did not fully understand the arguments. My argument was the Abortion was not Constitutional because the Constitution did not include it and recent Supreme Court cases ruled in favor of that view. Con argued that Abortion was a legal practice for 250 years and that the supreme court is ruled by cultists who hate women, later on we argued over the rights women had and wither abortion is slavery or not. "
This is why you are a retard. Con says the supreme court is ruled by cultists, and you bite and argue against that irrelevant point, He argues that they hate women and you bite and argue against that relevant point. he argues that it was legal 250 years ago and you bite on that irrelevant red herring. He argues that it is slavery and you allow him to define slavery in a stupid way and your rebuttal is essentially "Nuh uh"
dumb just dumb, here is his argument
p1- slavery is unconstitutional
p2- abortion is slavery
C- abortion is unonstitutional
That's a precise logical argument. You agreed with premise one. You agreed with the structure of his syllogism. you challenged him on premise 2 but he said that mothers do work for the benefit of their unborn child without pay. You never contradicted that working for others for no pay and being forced to do so is slavery. You merely said shit like "People don't mean abortion when they say slavery". That's not good enough to defeat the argument. You have to challenge his definition of slavery and it's not particularly hard to do. I mentioned a thought experiment when reading the debate out loud that had the potential to counter his definition or understanding of the definition. You are being stubborn and refusing to learn from your mistakes. WHich is sad, it means that you will be defeated with somebody who merely just steals Barney's arguments.
"Uh, that may be what the topic is about. But the point I made about the law of 1820 is a counterargument to Con's claim that abortion was not illegal for 250 years. See, you do not even properly evolute the argument before you decide."
Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it
"First of all, you don't know snoop Dog. Secondly, you just said that the topic is about abortion and its constitutional presence or lack their off. NOW, you are saying that your vote is based on how slavery was defined, which is both not the topic and a point you yourself said was, "Stupid and wrong." I clearly rebuttaled Abortion of slavery being the same withe abortion serveral times. This just confirms you are not voteing fairly."
Your rebuttals failed, and you have not watched my video to figure out why, so that is your problem. Slavery is relevant because both pro and con agreed it was unconstitutional
""Con's arguments for abortion equaling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments." Okay, so that means, that at no point you found Con's argument convincing. and that is the better argument the Criteria vote is meant to be based on."
You seem to be forgetting that the better argument can be shitty as though less shitty than the worst argument.
". I don't get Wylted's claim of me dropping promising arguments."
After the early part of the debate you hinted at the correct arguments to defeat con, particularly by briefly mentioning that judges determine the constitutionality of something, not the document itself. Even with Barney trying to avoid addressing this argument you just didn't pick up on the fact you had the seeds of a positive argument that could defeat him and make no mistake you needed a positive argument to win in order to win the debate given the burden split.
"Firstly, you should put that in your vote. secondly, what you said was vague and makes no sense. You admit that the argument Con made was, "Wong and stupid" in other words did not convince you, which is what the better argument is supposed to be about. Yet, you still vote for Con because I went for red herrings instead of addressing Con's arguments."
The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me.
"By the way, claiming that I did not address the cons arguments is false. When he said Abortion was a traditional legal practice for over 250 years. I countered with sources proving that anti-abortion laws had existed since 1820. When Con tried saying that A woman can be sent to jail for the rest of her life for abortion, I pointed out that only applied to a specific state."
The debate is about whether abortion is constitutional or not. It is irrelevant what people in 1820 thought.
"Most damming of all, when Con tried saying abortion was slavery thanks to the 13th Amendment, I quoted and referenced several sources debunking this very idea. "
I had Snoop Dog read your arguments to me and I heard your rebuttals. What I was looking at is how slavery was defined. You didn't present a legal definition of slavery which had you done so, would have debunked him. You let him get away with a lot. I think it should reveal a lot to you that I disagree vehemently with his side and still was not biased enough to vote in your favor. I would recommend watching my whole video, but at least the last 10 minutes or so and then learning from it.
I have no problem ever shrinking my main points down for feedback from judges or anyone who cannot use youtube. I will ask that they ask for reasoning shortly after my judgement as my memory is shit and I could forget why I placed even a recent vote
reasoning; Pro dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional . Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments.
They would agree and it's used as an insult. They are right to use it as an insult
"This debate was a long one",
agreed
"I commend both sides for putting a strong front."
I feel like this has been the most vulnerable I have ever seen Barney and american patriot still failed. I spit on both
"There were many times where I changed my position and agreed with the other side. "
terrible. I never agreed with either side.
"I can very well see other voters siding with Barney."
You will
How would the government stealing everything help Christians to give everything to charity?
I certainly am not Islamic but Muslims are not arguing the Quran itself is proof of God. God is quite obviously real, the rest is up for debate.
After you read that article you will realize that only an evil person can support socialized medicine. It would cause more death and more suffering