Instigator / Pro
8
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#3035

There is 0% chance of CON winning this debate

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

gugigor
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
995
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Description

This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!

-->
@Benjamin

Its a blatant contradiction then. If you don't agree with what you put in your description, then.... don't do it.

-->
@Benjamin

Your description and arguments need to agree. I get the attempt to be cute. Doesn’t fly.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I would just mention that the debate we are commenting on isn't rigged. I have no plan of removing votes, nor do I have an agreement with moderators to remove the votes. I of course know that moderators aren't gonna agree with the description. Even if you believe I wanted an auto-win, you would still know that my plan was to abuse the description to win the debate rather than actually remove the votes. Reading my R1 clearly shows that I do accept the possibility of losing as real, but I only regard it as invalid in STATISTICAL terms.

-->
@Benjamin

And I think your wrong - the description of THIS debate:
"This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!"

-->
@fauxlaw

I understand your conduct point.

I severely disagree with your sources point. CON uses a single source and does not demonstrate which impact it had, other than PRO's victory being unfair, which doesn't at all disprove PRO's victory. My R1 source basically proves that my claim of chance is valid since a debate won by CON would violate statistical assumptions. Unless by sources point you merely mean to punish for what you see as conduct failure, I don't see any reason for giving it to CON rather than tie.

With arguments point, I am not sure I understand. I clearly stated that it is impossible to roll a seven on "A" normal dice. But you base both your rejection of my R2 source and your rejection of my R1 argument based on a misunderstanding that with two dice it is possible. My argument in R1 was that only with cheating (aka, using two dice or re-painting the single dice) can you roll a seven. Thus, to claim that there is a non-zero probability of rolling a seven with that one dice would violate assumptions (that seven is not a valid option on a normal dice), and thus not be a valid claim of chance. CON never rebuts my logical evidence, so I am curious as to why you gave him the argument point.

I ask you to at the very least re-vote with a correct understanding of my R1 dice example, and nurces points based ot give soon a misinterpretation of said point.

-->
@Theweakeredge

As stated in my R1, the debate you are commenting on is not the same as this debate. I have no plan of removing votes.

-->
@Benjamin

Well there goes your plan to remove votes

-->
@RationalMadman
@gugigor
@Benjamin

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debate, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

Thank you for voting.

Until Round 2, Con doesn't even mention the concept of a win condition nor does Con explain what makes it more than 0% likely the audience will vote Pro since the rules dictate it.

-->
@Undefeatable

Sure, report my vote. Then I will explain why he didn't really.

-->
@RationalMadman

Just a heads up... in round 1 con did already mention only the audience had to be persuaded. In case you missed it

-->
@gugigor

Actually, it is. The debate wherein the moderators refuse to accept the rules isn't actually this debate.

-->
@Benjamin

nice try... but not good enough!

-->
@Benjamin

Not how descriptions work bud

-->
@gugigor

You did read the description, didn't you?

-->
@Sum1hugme

No. Not Elo farming. I honestly enjoyed writing this argument.

If you read my debates, you will see that I like to debate strange topics, especially those where one side should have a considerable advantage.

-->
@Barney

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating

This and the section above it, read them and combine them.

It implies voters shouldn't reward cheating autowin debates yet it's also fallacious voting to vote against the autowinner just because they did that.

-->
@RationalMadman

RM: How is a debate like this allowed?

Ragnar: Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.

RM: Wrong. They are.

...

I don't believe I was semantically misrepresenting your words. I had no way to infer you meant how could this debate be allowed to be rated instead of unrated from the first post in the conversation, nor your second.

Please quote any part of the CoC which dictates what debate types must be unrated? To my knowledge it is not there. If I'm correct, you are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to change that.

What? I've said this completely calmly, lol - are you that bad at reading moods? No - there is no nitpicking here, I've explained (in detail) why you are wrong here. You can back up your arguments or you can hand wave emm' away - your choice - this isn't me "picking a fight" this is me seeing something untrue and correcting you, I'm sorry - but you have to be one arrogant little prick to assume that me correcting you is me "trying to pick a fight" - see - now I'm frustrated, but that's more or less because you don't like what I have to say.

Anywho - the questions are rhetorical - that should be obvious bud - second of all -what? I said that automatically accepting a description as uncontestable fact was highly abusable, not to mention against the actual principles of accepting to be against the instigator - please explain (in detail) why that is nitpicking and how I am trying to pick a fight with you. Do you believe me interacting with you in a way that is disagreeing is me picking a fight with you? There is a very clear difference in me picking fights and me arguing, please learn it.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Your anger and nitpicking don't matter to me. I exolained to you the answer, you nitpick the 'Pro outlining their case' exception to the rule scenario to disprove me... What was the point in asking me? You only look for fights when you ask or tell me things.

-->
@Barney

Dude, why do you always look for semantic loopholes to disagree with me on issues of moderation?

I'm saying post-creation, this debate should be forced unrated.

My problem is that if that were the case, then kritiks would be effectively useless - I don't think that the mere fact that something is stated in the resolution that it should be opheimed, it makes much more sense to just have both debaters come to agreed definitions and such before the debate - but the fact that your opponent can see the description does not mean they accept the description - if you notice- a description is optional in a debate, whereas a resolution is not - as a debater, whenever you accept a debate, you are not accepting the resolution or the description - you are accepting that you are arguing for or against the resolution, that is literally it.

Given your logic, if there was something in the description, say - an argument for the resolution, - then that must defacto be accepted and is unarguably... which - is not only highly abusable, but quite stupid. I'm sorry, but no - your plain ole' wrong here - I have done the research too - nothing in the CoC says that accepting a debate means you accept what is said in the description - in fact - just like the resolution - it makes more sense that you are AGAINST the description, just as you are against the instigator's position. That is the point of debates

-->
@RationalMadman

If you really think I'm wrong to believe that I have not manually approved the creation of each debate before it goes live, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate on that topic; or any of the subtopics such as which debates are allowed to be rated.

As for minutea of this specific debate: I really don't want to say too much ahead of time for fear of influencing the debate arguments.

-->
@Theweakeredge

The person who accepts the debate sees the description, the person who instigated wrote it, therefore by oure logic both sides agreed to it upon acceptance.

I've been punished both for setting trap descriptions and for accepting and complaining/rule-bending. Ramshutu punished me both times, I don't say I agree with his hypocritical voting but I do say that both approaches have been happening.

-->
@Barney
@Theweakeredge

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating

This and the section above it, read them and combine them.

Please quote the part of the CoC that specifically says or implies that the description is automatically accepted, because I've actually investigated this before, and found no such principle.

-->
@Benjamin

Elo farming?

-->
@Barney

Wrong. They are. That is why the CoC says that autowin truisms are rendered unrated troll debates by force. It's something you enforce sporadically if at all.

-->
@RationalMadman

Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.

-->
@gugigor

You are a brave one

I actually can see a strategy here... I won't say what it is.

I think I could win this.

-->
@Barney

How is a debate like this allowed?