The user known as Wylted should commit suicide.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This debate is about whether I should kill myself. I am pro, that I should kill myself, my opponent is against me doing so. I ask that voting is fair and based on who argued better. There is a temptation that because I am arguing in favor of killing myself, that voting against me will encourage me not to. I assure you, that you have no influence on my decision. Just vote fair. I'm also requesting that my opponent has an IQ of 120 or above (as officially tested) not by online tests pandering to you in an attempt to get you to buy your "full results".
Also, I literally ignored every part of his argument where he was pleading with you and rambling about you not killing yourself - I literally said as much.
From my vote:
“The next round, pro focuses on his specific effects: his carbon footprint being a net negative, his fiancé not being able to replace him while he is alive, and that he isn’t helping starving children in Africa.
Con points out that pro is ignoring the positive impact of his life, and not providing an argument as to why one outweighs the other. While that is a good argument, as pro offered additional specific examples, I felt that con needed to give answers in return. But as he attacks the form of pros premise: that he is unfairly weighting life and not life - I can’t give pro the win on this round, and must score it a draw.”
Or, to clarify:: you raised a good point. Con countered it with a generic argument about how you weighted the value of your past and future lives - and how it is possible to mitigate ongoing negatives, which for me was convincing, but I scored this round as a draw because he didn’t counter your specifics with other specific examples.
I literally dealt explicitly with this part of your argument in my vote: and weight it more I’m your favour than others
Cons argument that you were weighting your future actions based on your past actions was killer - and is why you lost. If con had said something along the lines “you can mitigate your footprint by planting a few trees a year”, it would have been a total one sided victory. That’s what I was explaining in my vote.
Please show me the part of the debate where con said I can completely eliminate my carbon footprint.
he Just rambled on about not killing myself because I could be a better person, and ignored my negative impacts on the world such as environmental and ignored the fact that even if I improve people who are better than me can still fill my spot better than I could.
I did do an “impact” analysis. It’s just in that analysis was that the impact was in itself irrelevant. As I said in my vote:, your first round argument was that you had a specific negative impact on people - which was uncontested - cons whole argument was that you were implicitly conflating past impact with future impact. This was compounded by the fact that you yourself don’t really provide any compelling why the negative impacts necessitate your death as opposed to anything else.
So it seems you’re mostly butthurt because I didn’t view the implicit nature of the argument and the approach you presented the way you wanted me to in the context of the debate - mainly because con did much better at framing the difference between your claims and his in respect to context.
I took the debate off topic on purpose so he would continue to say the same shit and ignore my impact statements. No impact analysis was done by the boters so far though.
Almost everything you did was a mistake. There is no impact analysis here just awarding each side a mystery point for each argument. The conduct point was absurd, you literally should almost never award a point for anything but arguments. But there are some isolated examples of shitty logic such as : "The scenarios where suicide occurs are suboptimal as pro is measuring value based on past actions, not potential. That is a killer argument and wins this round."
You never did the math did you, killing myself would cause me to have no negative impact on the environment. If I lived I would definitely continue to harm the environment. I also said it could start off a chain of suicides that would also help the environment and my opponent never refuted the point so it should beaccepted. I also argued that I am not capable of eliminating my actions from causing any pain or suffering to anybody. He merely states I can reduce the pain I cause, he never argues that I can eliminate all negative conssequences of my actions occurring. He never even states it is okay to have some negative results if the good outwieghs it, no rebuttal. Please challenge me to a debate on whether that vote was shitty.
Also - it is incredibly hard for you to be honest as to why my vote sucked, when you have yet to provide any actual explanation as to what part of my vote you feel was incorrect, invalid, or otherwise “sucky”.
The Drafterman vote was saying exactly the same thing as my vote - literally the same thing - except I went into more detail to break down the individual arguments.
I literally mentioned a good vote against me. So it is more likely I am just being honest about why yours sucks.
Gotta love mature, reasonable adults who are capable of emotionally dealing with people voting against them.
No, I thought drafter's vote was decent. You're just biased and too low IQ to know how to adjust for that
I think your phone autocorrected “a vote that happened to go against my position”, to “shitty vote”.
I deny that their votes here are bad at all. I also deny that, overall, either is a net-bad voter relative to the norm.
The earlier voting was shitty, I'm not sure it was biased but that was before my time
Anyway don't deny ralter and sham are shitty voters
Go back to the beginning of their won debates (not all debates, let's only look at won) and observe the RFD quality even after vote-modding was introduced.
Mikal and bluesteel were such close friends that bluesteel as vote mod led to Mikal being able to easily slip past the radar so he lasted far longer with the BS votes in his favour whereas the others had to earn earlier on (3 years ago or so) but there's a reason why the top are form 'way back' it's because they are from the gang-voting era.
Mikal is a piece of shit and literally begged people for votes, but others in the top ten deserved it such as thett, danielle bsh1 roy latham, whiteflame etc.
He's talking about where the core community of this site came from. He is missing out (intentionally) how it used to be gang-voting mentality and shit. Mikal climbed by literally having a voting ring that to this day people half admit was really arranged.
I don't know what that answer means... so I think that means you win.
At least the debate with bsh1 will get voters who are competent. All the votes on the debates in the voting period I have are stupid, with the exception of the vote drafterman placed
Every remaining top 20 elo member of DDO
There is no funny reply I could give to that, that wouldn't abuse him given the resolution. ;)
Who will you get to judge?
Note: not mentioned in the RFD, there is a lot of content that was not mentioned intentionally. A substantial fraction of this debate had little to do with the debate contention on both sides - these arguments were ignored as irrelevant.