Instigator / Pro

Barney is not a good debater


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 7 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

we only consider debateart because is gone and we don't know about it

Round 1
Argument one: CON bears the burden of proof.

Note the resolution says "not good"  "bad".

Philosophers such as Plato have crowned a term named "chaotic state" which denotes that, in the status quo world prior to intelligibility, nothing was prohibited eg. the status quo of "killing" prior to philosophy could only be described amorally (not good, not bad) because it lacked any property. In philosophy we should always work ground up and take no assumptions. Thus, if we look at Barney's (B from now on) record neutrally, we should assume that it lacks properties of good or bad, and work from a place of neutrality to determine whether it is either of those things. Thus, the status quo is that B is neither good nor bad (hence not good). 

If B wishes to attack their current "not good" status, they must provide proof. Otherwise, they take L. 


Argument two: B does not have the traits of a good debater. 

Characteristics = 

  1. Beaten good opponents. 
  2. Good analysis abilities. 

  1. How we determine this? Two ways
    1. Look at all their opponents holistically - what is their combined record? 
      1. Combined records is a good way to determine strength. Eg. if my record is 100-0 but all my opponents have lost 10 times this isn't impressive. However, if my record is 10-3 and all my opponents have won 100 times, this is indicate of a better debater. It isn't perfect, but the probabilities of noob sniping is much less in the bare record (more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people). 
        1. For reference two debaters we consider good 
          1. Whiteflames 
            1. 1171-1704 (excluding oromagi because he is an anomaly)
          2. Bones 
            1. 238-159
    2. Notable people they have beaten 
      1. Whiteflames 
        1. Oromagi 
        2. bmdrocks21
        3. blamonkey
        4. RationalMadMan
        5. Ehyeh
        6. Undefeatable 
        7. Intelligence 
        8. MrChris
        9. Tejretics
          1. very respectable - these guys all have positive ratios themselves, and Tejretics was a DDO goat. 
      2. Bones
        1. Whiteflames
        2. Fauxlaw
        3. Benjamin 
        4. Nyxified 
        5. Sum1hugme
          1. Respectable, considering the small numbers of debates done - Nyxified was herself a state champion debater.
Let's run these metrics on Barney

  • Combined record 
    • 390-1104
      • FUN FACT - Barney has, out of his 37 opponents beaten on 3 people with a positive win loss ratio 
  • Strong opponents 
It is clear that Barney's record is embarrassing. He is in no way a good debater. He has not beaten anyone good, not do his opponents have good records. His lack of interaction with good debaters makes it impossible for him to be good. 

Remember the second dot point which is giving a good analysis. I can't prove he doesn't give good analysis (just like how he can't prove their isn't a magic grain of sand somewhere on the beach) but he can try to prove otherwise. 


Argument three: No one on this site is a good debater 

Bit of a cheeky argument here. Debater is defined like this - a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner.

That is, a debater is someone conforms to the above definition. 

Let's think of every debater in the world on a spectrum 

Bad debater - - - - - good debater. 

To be a good debater out of the wide pool of debaters that exist, you must have some great debating skills and corresponding prizes (participated in national debating, participated in Ivy League debates, participated in high level debates e.g. Harris vs Peterson, or debated in high level debating contests). B must prove that he did this, again, from my chaotic state observation, the status quo is that he has not done any of these things (we should assume he hasn't) so to disprove this point he must prove that he has done some good debates. If he hasn't then he isn't a good debater, in the sense that in society, he is not a good debater. 
I shall prove my case on three fronts, which shall be given their own sections below
  1. Win Record
  2. Leaderboard
  3. Quality of Debates
This debate is limited to, as written in the description: “we only consider debateart because is gone and we don't know about it”[sic]. Therefore, I shall seek to prove myself good by the standards of this website.
Burden of Proof
I have no issue with baring primary BoP.
Given the many definitions for good, I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website.
1. Win Record
My win record speaks for itself. 37 to 0. On average, the top 30 debaters only win 81.67% of the time.
Meaning were I average among them (each already self-evidently good), I would have lost 7 of those debates.
2. Leaderboard
The leaderboard uses an Elo calculation to rate debaters against each other via comparative and weighted wins and losses (1).
I’m 4th place out of 636 debaters (there are 2,839 total site members) (2).
From within that population, were I average I’d be around 318th place. I am clearly several orders of magnitude above average.
Due to frequency of someone showing up and full forfeiting their first debate, let’s decrease the size of that population…
We can deduct the ~240 who had a single loss, and average would be 198th place.
We can further deduct the ~90 who had two losses, and the average would be 153rd place. Among that distilled population, I would still rank 4th (which is to say in the top 97th percentile).
3. Quality of Debates
I offer readers high quality debates worth reading, which is self-evidentially a good.

Obvious examples include:
  • The Hall of Fame winning Fetuses as a replacement for the USD (3, 4).My opponent for that demonstrated himself to be quite good in his months before facing me, with several victories and a fine showing against Pinkfreud08; for which my arguments were able to turn a pro-life voter (5).
  • I successfully navigate trap debates, such as Brandon Stark will be the one who leads Westeros at the end of episode 6 (6)(and yes, sourcing pun intended).
  • I even win arguing uphill against truisms, as seen with The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God (7).
  • And let us not forget it was one of my debates which spawned the meme worthy “Mr. Hitler” quote (8). And including Like a Boss as a serious line of contention (9, 10)

4. Rebuttals:
4.1. “Beaten good opponents.”
Most obviously pro offers only a single subjective metric against me; which the positive metrics significantly outweigh.

That Whiteflame and Bones exist and are top tier debaters, does not challenge if anyone else is good. In fact the best debaters (such as Oromagi, whom pro is in turn mimicking) are upfront about using my debating style guide as their baseline (11).

Further, Pro cites my opponents more recent records, rather than what they were at the time of the challenges. My 4th source as an example, may be followed to find my opponent’s track record after the debate as throwing in the towel. Additionally, many of their losses following our debates were the results of forfeitures; thus, not an indicator to their skill at the time of any challenge to which they did not abandon.

4.2. “Good analysis abilities.”
This was left hanging without any support. The fact is I am great as analysis, as is clearly evidenced above;  with my math challenge against RationalMadman (for which another debater stood in; but it still shows both superior analysis and that I’m no coward) (12); and with writing the best Kritik guide available to elevate debating quality (13).

4.3. “No one on this site is a good debater”
Outside the scope of this debate, as the scope is clearly stated to be centric to this site via the description.

Within the scope of this debate, I’m in the Hall of Fame for a few categories (3).

Were the scope not so narrow…
To debate is an exercise in persuasion, and my persuasion skills have easily saved dozens of lives via educating sick villagers in Iraq how to clean their drinking water (and yes, they needed persuasion); saving many of their children from the 2nd leading cause of death among children worldwide (14, 15). This beats any trophy won in pure safety.


Round 2

  • I'll start of with CON's case, which will morph into my own. Just some thought before I dive in, the first two arguments are premised on the very mechanism I critiqued - that utterly manipulatable elo system which allows for noob sniping. 
Clarification: Debater vs Debater 

B quite cheekily states the following: I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site. 

1. Win Record & 2. Leaderboard

    • B's point in his Win Record Argument is this. 
      • p1. I have long win record compared to everyone else. 
      • C1. Therefore I am good debater. 
    • B's point in his Leaderboard argument is this. 
      • p1. I have a high elo compared to everyone else. 
      • C1. Therefore I am a good debater. 
    • The argument here is assumes that a win record and high elo is indicative of a good debater. This is not the case. I clearly provided a criteria for a good debater (beaten good opponents and have good analysis) and farming wins does not satisfy any of these criteria. 
      • Though it may seem odd, winning debates here does not necessarily mean you are a good debater. Consider for example, as I said in my first round, someone who snipes 100 debates. By B's logic, this person would be good at debating. This makes no sense, does someone who picks on people who they know will forfeit debates show they are a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner to a degree which will make them good? Obviously not. I proposed a far better metric (looking at the combined record of past competitors) to which I get zip nada response from B
3. Quality debates 

Examples B gives are bad 

  • 1. B himself said it was a "satirical debate on fetuses" (comedic ≠ good debaterwhich got only three votes at the end. 
  • 2. Awful - PRO's entire first round was two sentences, unstructured, unsourced, clearly suggestive of a not good debater. 
  • 3. Against some guy who's 0-2 who plagiarised his argument. 
  • And the last's claim to fame was the spawning of some "Mr Hitler" quote, which doesn't suggest a good debater, merely a "funny" opponent if anything. 
    • Even if you think any of these one debates were good, to be a good debater, you need to have more than a single good debate. B has not shown this in any way. 
My arguments 

B does not have the traits of a good debater

One criteria was

  1. Beaten good opponents
B DOENS'T ADDRESS THE FIRST. I clearly showed why combined record is better than mere record- "more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people". He DROPS that he has not beaten anyone good and DROPS the fact that he hasn't debated people with positive win records and DROPS that DROPS that his opponents combined record is holistically BAD

Only rebuttal is that B first complains that I "cite my opponents more recent records, rather than what they were at the time of the challenges."This is dumb. If I box someone and win, and they go on to lose 20 fights, this surely should be taken into account for the opponent probs was in decline and my achievement isn't that good. 

He tries to explain his bad combined record by saying his opponent forfeited rounds, however, this just indicates a bad debater. If a lawyer misses 3 of his court dates, he is obviously not a good lawyer even if he is a proficient speaker. Part of debating is showing up, forfeiting is not a strong excuse (look at good debaters [whiteflames, bones} they never forfeit)


  • B hasn't 
    • Beaten anyone notable
    • got analysis skills
    • good resume
      • gg

In short, my opponent time and again wishes to have their cake and eat it to, which reduces their case to a string of contradictions within their logical framework.

The description clearly states that this debate shall only consider this website.
Pro is engaging in special pleading for why her this rule should selectively apply against only one data source [1].
Worse, she has not capitalized on this with citing any better debaters off site, rather she handwaves assuming they must exist in vast numbers without any of them being bad [2]; even while also insisting on a chaotic state standard in which “we should always work ground up and take no assumptions.”

Pro’s 3 people community analogy fails; as ≥30 is needed for statistical significance under Central Limit Theorem [3], and this website has hundreds.

Further, it is unchallenged that if outside is considered, I have surpassed all others named or even implied to exist via using debating to save dozens of lives.

1. Win Record
Pro criticizes that “win record and high elo is indicative of a good debater. This is not the case.” [sic]
This is counter to their praise of Whiteflame and Bones, as said praise was based directly upon them winning and netting high ELOs from it (yes, beating others with high ELOs; but if ELO is meaningless, then nothing is shown for why it should then be selectively meaningful).

“someone who snipes 100 debates.”
I have not been shown to noob-snipe.
Rather, a casual glance through my comment history shows a prolonged and consistent pattern of welcoming new members without jumping into their debates [4, 5, 6].

2. Leaderboard
“I proposed a far better metric (looking at the combined record of past competitors) to which I get zip nada response from B.”
First, this is obviously a lie, as anyone can scroll up to 4.1. above.

Second, pro has since then decided win record is not indicate of a good debater while their standard is based upon it!

Third, they have not given access to their spreadsheet to see the rankings beyond just 3 members, and they specifically used an analogy of a 3 people to insist that is not enough to draw any conclusions.

Forth, if the mark of someone being good is beating good opponents, then no one can ever first become good for others to then be good via beating them.

Whereas, ELO has 636 people publicly compared for their ability at the time of the debates, with ELO harder to gain from lower ranked members by higher.

Pro is insisting forfeiting counts as a debating skill indicator, which means that roughly half the members who forfeit then never come back are the average debater for their sample. Therefore, anyone who simply doesn’t forfeit is above average, and anyone who doesn’t forfeit and wins must be good.

Worse, pro’s standard is curiously open ended. Defeating a whale like Oromagi would become a mark against someone, if he later throws in the towel and intentionally loses a ton of debates.

3. Quality of Debates
Pro has failed to show any better debates than mine, nor challenge the quality of analysis I offered within them; and even implies that I am better than the provided sample debaters (including one who I argued is good, which pro dropped).
  1. Debates being too dry to read does not imply good quality. Besides, my satire easily defeated a wholly serious and good debater who had most votes thrown out for treating the debate as comedy. Extend.
  2. No challenge to me being great at analysis to defeat well laid traps has been offered. No samples of other debaters having the skill to do likewise have been offered. Extend.
  3. That my opponent plagiarized part of his argument, was not factored into argument allotments. I out analyzed a deeply rooted truism. No samples of other debaters being able to do this has been offered. Extend.
  4. Comedy gold is a net good.

Extend all, with emphasis on debaters who pro calls “good” intentionally and directly emulating my style.

Never Forfeit:
Pro introduces another standard of a good debater of simply: “never forfeit.” I have consistently met this standard [7]; unlike many of the notables pro lists.

Good analysis abilities:
This is one of the core pillars pro insists mark a good debater, and yet no samples of better analysis than mine have been forthcoming.

That my analysis is so good that it has elevated debating itself via the guides I’ve written, was wholly dropped. No similar or greater feats from any other has been shown.

My evidence only needs to show I’m good, and it overwhelmingly shows that I’m great.
Whereas, pro has an underwhelming shortage of evidence.