Ragnar always votes against me and i think its personal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Ragnar should be censored for his bias to me
Ragnar, bro why do you hate me? talk to me
For this debate, I shall be using the style from the formatting guide . Honestly, I’m doing this debate to try to help Bill improve...
I shall disprove both premises of the resolution
- That I always vote against Bill, and
- That my voting regarding Bill is personally targeted against him.
Burden of Proof
The resolution is divided between two premises. Bill should win if he proves both with some degree of certainty, and I should win if such fails (either due to my efforts, or him just not making a case).
I. “always votes against”:
Avoiding any games of how frequently I do other activities besides voting, I shall take this to mean that I vote against him on all of his debates...
On the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things,” due to him offering what I considered to be a superior argument, I graded the arguments in favor of Bill ; giving him his sole victory I might add.
I have additionally not voted on all of Bill’s debates.
My votes account for 12.5% of first page of the leaderboard . This can cause confusion as I vote a lot; meaning if someone is giving poor performances, I am statistically likely to cast many votes against them.
II. “its personal” [sic]:
For this one, I shall highlight the two paths Bill is likely to choose between...
While I hope this premise is to mean just that it’s personal; Bill has an advantage he can press here, in that he precluded the statement with “i think” [sic], giving him the semantic path that I cannot disprove what he truly thinks. If he goes that path, I will of course argue that he must offer some minor proof to his internal thoughts.
Going this route, Bill must show some evidence that I hold some type of personal grudge against him. If he wronged me at some point, that would be good evidence. Until such has been presented, I cannot offer evidence against it (aside from what I did in the Prolific Voter subpoint).
you always vote against me bro always its there for all too see
Pro has dropped my case, and made no more than a weak argument by assertion. As a reminder, his claims are...
Verifiably FalseOn the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things,” due to him offering what I considered to be a superior argument, I graded the arguments in favor of Bill ; giving him his sole victory I might add.
Thank you all for voting!
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: PRO's offering was pretty straightforward-
P1: User Ragnar always votes against user billbatard
C1: therefore, Ragnar is shown to be biased in debates involving user billbatard
PRO's single strand of evidence was instantly disproved with CON's link to a debate where Ragnar favored billbatard
As instigator and provacateur, BoP was 100% PRO's and he just didn't bother to assemble any case beyond the one faulty assertion
CON offered contradicting evidence and challenged PRO to prove state of mind, which challenge PRO did not accept. In fact, PRO never engaged.
Arguments to CON.
Sources to CON for refuting PRO entire premise with a link to a vote contradicting PRO's assertion.
S&G to CON for offering PRO the point if PRO would only adhere to DART formatting (as designed by CON). PRO ignored this generous offering.
Conduct to CON because PRO essentially used debates to dodge the "no call out thread" rules of DART. Judging by PRO's overall lack of conviction and effort, this VOTER finds that PRO's debate represent an effort to troll/provoke that was effectively nullified by CON's adherence to DART standards.
If Bill manages to use my suggested formatting in R2, I urge an S&G vote in his favor for the magnitude of improvement.