Instigator / Con
8
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3431

On balance, do LGBTQ people in the United States who make an income of over 80,000 USD DESERVE to eat meat?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Deserve: do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).

Meat:
1. Red Meat: All livestock is considered red meat. This includes beef, pork, goat, and lamb.
2. Poultry: Commonly referred to as white meat, poultry includes chicken and turkey.
3. Seafood: That includes fish, as well as crustaceans, like crab and lobster, and molluscs, like clams, oysters, scallops, and mussels.

Eat: put (food) into the mouth and chew and swallow it.

USD: United States Dollars

BOP: Shared

Okay. I don't really have to engage with such an obvious bad faith and dishonest statement other than to point out it is bad faith and dishonest

Oh look, Novice is freaking out and accusing everyone who voted against him of being stupid and biased against him. Color me shocked.

-->
@Novice

Stay mad

-->
@Novice

In no way did oromagi gish gallop you. He just went through your arguments point-by-point.

-->
@Nyxified

Let me start by saying I do not care if you are a trans person no matter how many times you mention it. Of course, we must see your daily reminder. While you whine that this site is heavily based against you, this isn't true in any way, and I could care less about your attempts to proport self pity.

1. "half a dozen people"
Learn to count.

2. "the problem is that you're an idiot"
Projecting.

-->
@Novice

ADoL doesn't debate as to avoid the ad populum fallacy.
If you stop debating, it will be to avoid recognizing that you could even in some minor way improved your debating.

As a trans person having to justify my own existence regularly on this site that's heavily biased against me, I can tell you that it's bias plays a factor, but it's not insurmountable. When you have half a dozen people including the most active and reputable debaters on the site representing a vast array of biases and perspectives all simultaneously telling you that you lost because you debated poorly, your claims to bias are nothing more than vain tantrum of a child who refuses to recognize that they might have, at the very least, failed to communicate their logic effectively.

I'm creating my own debate on a very similar resolution today just to show you that the problem isn't bias, the problem is that you're an idiot.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@Novice

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:

See Voting Tab

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter specifically covers a wide variety of arguments from the debate, includes specific points made by both sides under those arguments, and determines the outcome of the debate on that basis. That is sufficient to award argument points.

-->
@Novice

Sign up for coaching from me, I will make you vicious.

-->
@Novice

And do you know who will know your new account? Whiteflame, Supadudz and potentially... Barney.

That is the mod team.

I will make my new account, maybe go on an undefeated run, and then hang it up for good I think. It's just been ruined for me.

-->
@oromagi

I would absolutely beat you on that topic, but I am just not interested in debates anymore after all the issues I have had with voters.
I have conceded to ADOL, debates on this site are just...not worth it. The joy is gone because of how many people vote with spite and use
their bias and personal issues in the voting block.

So that's why I have not accepted.

-->
@Novice

You've asked me to debate you.
You've expressed confidence that you could beat me in a debate on the 2020 election.
You've been invited to accept that very debate.
Why haven't you accepted? That debate expires tomorrow.

I'm just telling you in case you believe you have made a valid point, I suppose.

-->
@oromagi

Sure, thanks? I mean the truth never fails. It's like I said, I don't feel well, today. It has already cost me a debate, and I'm not totally upset if it costs me a gish gallop.

-->
@Novice

"everything you have said is wrong,"

Brilliant comeback

-->
@oromagi

I can't respond to your gish gallop but essentially everything you have said is wrong, especially on the genetic fallacy.

-->
@RationalMadman

"The author... who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocrevote."

The claim I am refuting is "Ragnar does not understand how to vote in debates" I have not read the debate or Ragnar's vote and have no opinion on either. I am refuting Novice's manifestly false claim that Ragnar does not understand the voting process on DART when in fact, Ragnar more or less IS the voting process on DART.

-->
@Novice

"One thing I should mention is that I actually like Barney, as my narrow general default liking for everyone extends to him. I am saying these things to help ham because he has to understand these things. No ill will from my side, it is, I promise, out of concern"

In future, I suggest you lead with Smeagol

-->
@Novice

"This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is saying someone falls under the label of an insult therefore their conclusion is false. "

Argumentum ad hominem is "an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. "

Barney is an idiot
Barney is incompetent.... he is simply too stupid
Barney is an imbecile

Classic ad hom without any supporting argument. In context, this is bullying the voter with insults to try to get the voter to change their vote. Extremely poor conduct.

p1) People who aren't stupid can vote effectively

Easily falsified. Many intelligent people fail to vote effectively because they prioritize personal loyalties, or lack education, vote single issue, are too lazy to vote, etc.

p2) Barney is stupid

Easily falsified. A 20 minute scan of Ragnar's dominant rhetorical performances on DDO and DART demonstrate why he has been recognized as a leader in online debating for years.

c) Therefore, Barney cannot vote effectively

Formal Aristotelean violation there, bub. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. Even if your major premise were not manifestly false, it provides no information about stupid people much less how stupid people vote. Rationally, one may not infer that stupid people cannot vote effective just because non-stupid people can.

Conclusion: Novice cannot even logic much less argue much less take advice

-->
@oromagi

The author of the vague voting standards of DART who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocre (or less than mediocre but not entirely poor) vote.

There is no guaranteed correlation there, he may of course be inclined to not leave a vote that totally violates the rules but that by no means he leaves a good one.

-->
@Novice

"Just because someone created or playeda role in creating somthing, it does not follow that they automatically can (in practice) excersize such fucntion based on the criteria they may have created to a sufficent degree. For example: Thomas Jefferson the parimary writer of the declaration of independence clearly documented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" but he also had slaves."

Poor comprehension of the genetic fallacy and therefore shit description. A GENETIC FALLACY is "a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the irrelevant source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence." So if you were debating "Let's put gay people in concentration camps" or whatever, Thomas Jefferson would not be a particularly relevant source in spite of his manifest erudition and genetic fallacy might apply. However, If you are going to argue that Thomas Jefferson does not know much about the Declaration of Independence then you are going to look like an idiot.

In this instance you are claiming "Ragnar doesn't know how to vote on DART." The facts that Ragnar is the most prolific voter on the site and that Ragnar authored the rules you claim he does not know are 100% relevant to topic and utterly devastating to the case of any rational claimant. By definition, the author of any work is an expert on that work's contents.

-->
@Novice

Do you understand the actual level of skill I even displayed in this debate?

I am not meaning to insult you, I am asking if you caught onto what happened... You seem to always think you outperformed the other because you did decent, that doesn't mean the other didn't outclass you.

I entered a bait-resolution, utilising the very parts of it you thought were good for bait and made that into the actual way that I limited the amount of people boycotting meat and noticed they were wealthy...

Over time, I made the very cunning element of your case encase you in an inescapable web of Burden-of-Proof that you couldn't meet in a 2-Round 5k-per-Round 1-day-deadline restricted environment.

You don't understand or appreciate how well I did in this because you are completely incapable of putting your ego aside for a moment and questioning if I was your equal, let alone superior in an encounter where you default yourself to the best.

-->
@Nyxified

The debate shouldn't harm your sanity.
It's a pretty quick read, and only two rounds.

I am very sick currently so I wanted to make those responses to be clear about them.

-->
@oromagi

One thing I should mention is that I actually like Barney, as my narrow general default liking for everyone extends to him. I am saying these things to help ham because he has to understand these things. No ill will from my side, it is, I promise, out of concern

-->
@oromagi

"It is possible you don't know that under another username, Ragnar is not just the top voter on this site, he is also an author of some of the voting standards. He wrote the rules you are claiming he doesn't understand."

Genetic fallacy or fallacy of origins. Just because someone created or playeda role in creating somthing, it does not follow that they automatically can (in practice) excersize such fucntion based on the criteria they may have created to a sufficent degree. For example: Thomas Jefferson the parimary writer of the declaration of independence clearly documented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" but he also had slaves.

"oof. do you not know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think ad homs in comments section are going to win you points, then you are the dummy. You got to be cool in your debate demeanor, cool in comments, classier than your opponent- that's how you win debates. Sour grapes convinces no voters"

This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is saying someone falls under the label of an insult therefore their conclusion is false. Barney is wrong for all the reasons I will be documenting behind the scenes. I am saying here that:

p1) People who aren't stupid can vote effectively
p2) Barney is stupid
c) Therefore, Barney cannot vote effectively

So I am saying he is stupid to justify the conclusion that he cannot vote effectively, while being stupid appears to be one of the reasons, it is not all of them. I'm just seeking alternative means because of this trait.

-->
@Novice

"Either he just doesn't know or understand how to vote in debates, "

It is possible you don't know that under another username, Ragnar is not just the top voter on this site, he is also an author of some of the voting standards. He wrote the rules you are claiming he doesn't understand.

"he is simply too stupid to do it effectively, "

oof. do you not know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think ad homs in comments section are going to win you points, then you are the dummy. You got to be cool in your debate demeanor, cool in comments, classier than your opponent- that's how you win debates. Sour grapes convinces no voters.

I want to vote on this debate, but I fear that reading through more than a few paragraphs would obliterate my sanity.

-->
@Novice

You're welcome to explain how the vote "is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate."

Until then, you can continue your lazy barrage of ad hominem attacks, but it will only further reduce the odds of more voters weighing in on this debate.

-->
@Barney

Another thing to note, none of what I am saying is personal. You are simply objectively an idiot. I have no personal feelings twoards you, but I am trying to help you or provide assistance.

-->
@Barney

I think you are too incapable of understanding conversations meant for different people. By this I mean people who are perhaps more reasonable to different degrees. However I feel obligated to provide some sort of reassuring statement here so don't worry, it will be taken care of.

Now, as stupid and ridiculous as you are, It has been made clear to me that many other people (many of which have messaged me personally) actually have similar views as myself on you and your perpetual idiocy, so I believe I am fine in that regard.

Thank you for your extended concern.

-->
@Novice

Let me guess, whomever you had cross reference the vote to the debate found it highly topical due to directly paraphrasing several lines of contention?

Were you correct about the vote, you had an easy way to get it removed. As is, the extent to which you're factually wrong, speaks for itself. Worse, you've just told every potential voter how you'll behave towards them if their vote contains any of the same topics mine mentioned (which you insist none of came up in the debate).

-->
@Novice

Your condemnations of Barney's vote are continuously straying into personal attacks. If you have a problem with his vote, please keep your criticisms to the substance of that vote and take the focus off of Barney himself. He may be a mod, but that doesn't excuse the insults.

-->
@Novice

Have you tested your skills elsewhere and consistently been deemed the winner?

Are you sure that you are as skilled a debater as you think you are?

I am not asking to get under your skin while you are already hurt and angry. Instead, I am just telling you that we each have our own talents and lacked talents in debating. Learn to refinenyoyr style, make your debating martial art more invincible by refining it to even voters you think are stupid.

Try it or don't, the results will show in the long run. Debating for Rating is this way, it involves deception. The skill is in making voters think your opponent played either worse or dirtier.

You are not just reasoning, you are painting a picture, playing a tune... learn what your audience likes and how to make your opponent's art seem less appealing.

I think it's extremely pathetic, and it really hurts me to berate you in this way because I tend to be an extremely kind person, but it's for your own good.

-->
@Barney

I will even admit that this could be a case of your genuine stupidity, which appears to be more likely comming from you, but I hope I can use means behind the scenes to get the evaluations I would prefer. You are simply on too low of an level for me to even begin to provide any form of education to you, and honestly, you are over 30 years old. That was your teachers job.

-->
@Novice

> "Vote casted that is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate"

Were that true, any vote which considers the various arguments of yours I listed would be wholly invalid. Please have someone you trust check if your case does or does not contain the word "torture" as my vote indicates as a key point of contention. If it really doesn't contain that, I'll remove that vote right away. It's really that simple if I've posted a RFD for a different debate as you seem to think.

If it does contain it, then you're just repeating a pattern of having breakdowns whenever people don't declare you the winner just for showing up, and each time you're unable to actually name a real fault aside from it hurting your feelings.

Granted, I too would prefer if there were more active voters around.

Barney is an imbecile that would rather take out his personal issues rather than be objective.

-->
@RationalMadman

My point was that wealthy people don't even have to eat meat, so the argument is that even if you made a counter that it is necessary to survive therefore they deserve its consumption, it would be irrelevant.

-->
@Novice

what I mean is that the resolution is about deserving to eat, not specifically to purchase.

So for instance if a non-LGBTQ friend hosted a gathering and the LGBTQ wealthy person ate meat there, they would violate the resolution but not violate your proposed attack on purchasing.

This was not really worth me sidetracking in the debate because I was fine with the framework that you'd laid out.

This keeps happening, but when it is a result of the same person constantly, I have no choice but to conclude that Barney is incompetent. Either he just doesn't know or understand how to vote in debates, he is simply too stupid to do it effectively, or he is excersizing an action of personal bias, which doesn't make sense to me. Even if you have something against me, why would it reflect in the voters tab?

-->
@RationalMadman

What are you talking about? I meant eat meat? When did I say otherwise that I made a mistake?

-->
@whiteflame

Vote casted that is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate

The vote is not even relevant to anything, I don't even know what he is talking about. Barney is an idiot, so I understand the more cognitive reasons, but I can't keep taking this.

No, I'm tired of this. There is no way this vote is actually justified. This constantly happens.

-->
@Barney

The resolution says eat, Novice meant 'purchase' but I did not wish to Kritik that because I was happy to turn it against Novice.

I need to reread this before voting, it feels like I missed the point of the resolution the first time, leaving the debate a convoluted mess.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

7 days to vote, please do.

I said Pro meant Con fuck

-->
@Novice

There is no reason why any of these arguments can't be turned around for normal people. Was that an oversight or an intended word-choice to make people confused?