Barney is not a good debater

Now that voting has closed... Regarding your vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3817/comment-links/47204

> The only argument [for analysis] he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good".

This misunderstanding speaks of either not understanding how to weigh arguments against each other (Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole), and/or having not read the majority of the debate (seriously, do a word search for "analy"). The analysis abilities were showcased throughout the round, with the single paragraph you read there even pointing that out before highlighting two extra proofs (one of which contextually used pro's own evidence against them).

> pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo...

This would be an /ok/ assessment of a single contention, if contentions exist wholly in isolation.

> very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit

This is showing an opinion not supported with what was presented in the debate. I suggest doing a word search for "forfeit" and rereading the relevant paragraphs. Pro's line of reasoning even opened up that according to their metric defeating Oromagi might mean someone is bad at debating based on unknown future performance (which was the key indicator that various people with positive win records I defeated meant I'm actually somehow bad). Even then, it's ok if you buy that, but why it wholly overrides less subjective measurements offered should be explained.

...

From the voting policy, right away there's the highlight "Strive to be fair." No one is going to think you're doing that, if you don't give at least a passing review of their core contentions (especially when they're laid out and numbered so clearly).

Thank you for voting, and for giving such good feedback as to the weaknesses of my case.

Vici spends 24+ hours of their time trying to get Barney's attention and proceeds to accuse the latter of seeking validation.

Ironic.

"If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?""

blah blah blah blah rubbish rubbish I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE OK. STOP TRYING TO GET VALIDATION. "yada yada Im a soldier this that" bro this is a debating website I dont care ok?

"As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours,"
yup if you think it was "key" then it clearly implies that you yourself are missing key parts of your brain. It is neither proportionally nor substantially "key".

"CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater."

yup - and this is further proof that you lack any logic. absolute monstrosity. no wonder you lost you novice.

If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?"

As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours, and then when I listed mine you dropped the point.

this ongoing battle is hilarious

I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children

blah blah blah blah why do you keep trying to pull at heartstrings???? "wah wah im so great I saved kids" buddy this is nothing about debating ok? this is the embodiment of "no body asked".

Thank you for the extremely detailed vote.

I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children. But that's my ethical bias showing itself.

This debate has been mentioned in the latest edition of the DART Bard. Read it here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8210-dart-bard-6th-edition-midterms-11-7-2022

Vici has demanded a rematch, and I've accepted. It can be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3865-barney-is-not-a-good-debater-finale-atbarney

If in doubt, I advise simply not reading commentary before voting.

Personally, I try to keep my comments on my own active debates minimal to avoid risk the of unduly swaying potential voters.

> His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping

There was an implied accusation (without evidence), that my win record was from noob sniping. Therefore I offered additional evidence on the matter to to remove any sliver of doubt that it was non-sequitur. Throughout the debate you can see a consistent theme when it comes to which side has evidence to raise ideas above being hollow assertions.

As for me not showing enough of my analysis skills: What better analysis was shown from any other debater? Particularly the average debater whom I am equal or less than?

RFD: You know, I must have confused my notes when I wrote down Con had the analysis argument be more thorough, I thought he had that but that might have been in the comments. The only argument he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good". In any case, the rest of my analysis stands, and I'm not completely sure con has enough evidence here to win.

pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo. He tried to show his enemy was serious and good in the fetus USD debate, but there is a mere assertion so I can’t really buy it just like that. The other debates also seemed like weak assertions since he’s just tossing out ideas with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument. If Con didn't take BOP, I probably would've left a tie or even Con win.

If you are interested, I would be happy to engage with you in a debate like this, not out of bad blood or anything personal, but because I think this sort of debate is actually very interesting and unlike anything I have ever participated in. Although, i do understand if you are drained on proving that you are good.

IMO the debate showed clearly that the average debater would forfeit at least half of those. But that is just me nitpicking. If the comparative evidence did not suggest to you I'm at least good, as much as I disagree, the fault lies with me for not using enough evidence.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I want to make clear that I don’t think you are a mere 1500 debater - just that you adopted the onus to prove that your resume would elevate anyone at that level to “good” (status quo is that you are 1500). You provided four debate examples to lift yourself out of the status quo, and despite Vici providing compelling refutations for them (that the oppositions are weak, that comedic debates are not indicative of a good debater), it is also quite reasonably argued that even if the debates were extraordinary, there is very little one can do to elevate themself into “good” level in such a small amount of debates. For the examples you provided, I had to think to myself “if a new no profile user came along and performed as you did in them, would I consider them good?” and the answer is no.

Thank you for voting.

I accepted BoP even while it traditionally rests on pro, as I did not want to engage in a debate over BoP instead of comparative evidence; especially not when there are already too few characters to fit said evidence in. Regardless, I believe I utilized her own words on it well, since no better analysis was shown in any area by any other debater, particularly not outside this site. From the metric of outside this site, what better accomplishments than mine were cited?

As for considering me to me a mere 1500 ELO level debater, I believe my arguments overly refuted that.

As for her calculation, I do not think I am great under it, as much as even it shows me to be vastly superior to the average debater (remember, she insists forfeiting counts as debating).

The description to me doesn't come across as a rule so much as a musing to merely fill space so the debate could be started

I think B is now your daddy and you are the cheeky son of a B.

What do you think of how I convincingly refuted that when I said

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.

Do you think this is fair? I would love a vote

If you hadn't included that rule in the description, I would have voted for you, hands down.

"I am open to this idea."

If you were really open to it, you would have challenged Barney by now and asked him to pick a topic and asked whiteflame if he would like to be a judge. But since you did neither, you aren't really open to the idea.

In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.

nope, instead of using "in other words" inference which you are clearly cognitively unable to apply, how about you read what I say - I am open to this idea.

but if you wish for me to be explicit, yes I will beat Barney in any debate which fairly gives participants an even footing.

"I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious."

In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.

" Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self."

I'm sorry that you were dropped at birth, but could you tell me what part of " I am open to this idea" do you not understand. I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious., hence him not debating say novice in a fair contest.

I would not draw attention to him, I have come to find out that he thrives off it. That is to say, I am not interested in feeding the troll any longer. My interest only extends to debating, and if all I am going to get is dodges and incoherent rambles, even solely interacting becomes a waste of time.

Oof. Barney you gonna take that?

Vici did not appear to be backing out, but seems to be stating that Barney would be too scared to even accept the challenge, so there is no point in wasting such time/giving him the attention. This is something I can generally agree with as someone Barney is scared of debating.

So... You guys gonna debate or what? Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self.

shiver me timbers a "few" challenges over "the years"? How very prolific!

"Plus since you believe online debating does not count"

I do

While not often, I've had a few open challenges over the years. Had you done your research on me, you'd know that.

Plus since you believe online debating does not count; how the eff do you imagine I sniped my debate opponents in Iraq?

to be fair, he defeated me in an abortion debate where I played devil's advocate, and I think I'm half decent. So there is that...

sorry, there's no way barney would ever challenge me in a legit debate. he just snipes opponents and honestly, as is evident in my argument, he will only debate people who knows he can beat. So, although I am open to this idea, this fair notion for a random topic, I don't think barney would ever be up for anything so unpredictable.

I think the only way to settle this if for the two of you to debate another topic and you have whiteflame as the judicial vote.

That way it will be completely fair. Whiteflame votes because he is the one moderating the votes to this debate so he is the most knowledgeable on how to vote properly, and that way it is a completely fair debate to both of you. If Barney wins, he is a better debater than you. If you win, then you are a better debater than Barney.

The topic can also be chosen completely at random. There's websites that do that sort of thing. Or a third party could choose the topic for both of you.

Probably not, I'm afraid. I don't have much motivation to write a detailed vote. When the voting is greatly in favor of one side, that motivation drops to near zero.

A good argumentation tactic is to imagine someone agrees with the other side, and then build a case that casts doubt upon the core tenets of that agreement. Hence why I engaged with the "No one on this site is a good debater" line of argument with a Catch-22.

Anyways, I hope you'll take the time to vote.

"so again to your question, I would like a good vote, but if it is a good vote, then it will be in favour for me. Im really trying not to be arrogant, but this is how I see it. I see zero way Barney won that one."

This is the best quote I've seen here in a while. The complete inability to even imagine how someone could disagree is staggering, but yet incredibly common.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter appears to spend a large portion of their RFD explaining how they would run an argument differently from Pro, they do nonetheless provide specific analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and how that affects their decision. As with previous RFDs, the voter does not need to go into detail about how each point from the debaters does or doesn't work. So long as the voter provides feedback that applies to many or all of the arguments presented by each side, that is sufficient.
**************************************************

" note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi"

self entitlement at it's finest because some people vote against you."

With all the hype you've raised for this debate, I'm surprised you have not nominated it for the Hall of Fame.

Your "small kritik" was the only argument that addressed Barney's, and since Barney's argument satisfied BoP on its own, only arguments that countered it are worth considering.

has whiteflame defeated good debater YES OR NO.

Based on the framework and arguments in the debate, Pro has not explained how any of their opponents are good and argues nobody on DART is truly good relative to all world debaters. Therefore NO.

has barney defeated good debaters YES OR NO

NO by the same logic.

Feels like you've got a different perception of what is "the HEART of" the argument in this debate. Voters are allowed to make that determination for themselves. That doesn't mean they can dismiss your case wholesale without explanation, but it does mean that they have some leeway when it comes to evaluation of what arguments matter in a debate and why. K_Michael gave you a specific reason why he believes your arguments don't work. Though he doesn't outright point to two of your arguments, he still gives reasoning for why they would not matter in this debate: because of what is written in the description. You clearly argued against that perception, but just because you argued it doesn't mean that that argument must be a substantial factor in a voter's decision, particularly if they didn't find it compelling.

As for sources, I really don't understand your point. Both sides used common knowledge sources. K_Michael pointed to a source from Barney that is not common knowledge and required more digging into the data. Unless you have reason to believe that source of yours should be considered similarly potent, I don't think this is responsive to his reasoning.

all that whiteflame and Bones defeated are not good.

look ill give it to you easier. please just yes or no

has whiteflames defeated good debater YES OR NO.

has barney defeated good debaters YES OR NO.

WHY DOES EVERYONE TALK ABOUT THE SMALL KRITIK I TALKED ABOUT. WHY DONT YOU TALK ABOUT THE MAIN ARGUMENT, THAT IS THE ACTUAL MEEEETTRIICCCC OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD DEBATER??? you are clearly voting with preconceived ideals.

Your entire argument 3, which is actually argument 2 as BoP assignment isn't an argument, violated the prior one by saying all that whiteflame and Bones defeated are not good. You are not even mentally taking in what I am typing, you are replying only to attack and defend. Stop and take in what I say.

"Furthermore, Barney as Ragnar on DDO"

blah blah ddo talk.

"In proving they are good, you then proved that Barney is good on the same metric"

yup I said this preemptively in round 1.

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)

I know its not perfect, but it sure as hell is BETTER when COMPARED to the metric barney uses.

I meant the DDO goat reference and his entire second contention blatantly violated his own thesis and its scope.

BoP isn't a contention so by second I mean what he calls 3.

Oh and thanks for voting.

I did not even realize the Tejretics victory was back on DDO. I did find the reference to him as a DDO goat as odd considering the no DDO rule; but I ran out of characters to address that.

> That word is spelled rationale not rational, FYI.

Thank you for that correction.