Instigator / Pro
29
1501
rating
11
debates
27.27%
won
Topic
#3817

Barney is not a good debater

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
15
Better sources
10
14
Better legibility
7
7
Better conduct
6
7

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

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
43
1815
rating
50
debates
100.0%
won
Description

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

-->
@Vici

Nobody that whiteflame has defeated is good without proving they are good.

In proving they are good, you then proved that Barney is good on the same metric. You just are too blinded by ego right now to consider what I am saying is true. You defeated your own contentions by several contradictions.

-->
@Vici

I did not base it on that, that was one of many examples of you violating the scope that you then needed to stay true to.

Report the vote and we will see.

-->
@Vici

If that is what I am and you ignore when I have defeated high winrate debaters such as Novice on his old account here, your system is fundamentally flawed.

Furthermore, Barney as Ragnar on DDO amd here has a 100% winrate against debaters of high winrate when and if they clashed, including Oromagi on DDO and Novice on DART and now yourself, who you may consider good.

This brings into question why the scope ignores outside of DART if your entire second contention violates it.

rational mad man do you agree that you awarding the vote based on my "accidentally" adding Tejectics was a mistake, and that holistically, the other people whiteflames has defeated are good?

as said in the debate, if I have a high win record against people who have lost 10000 times, im not very good in any metric am I?

But look, you are also a noob sniper so this argument attacks you so you would never have agreed.

the high win record against people who have had a high win record.

-->
@Vici

So the high win record makes the opponent themselves good?

-->
@K_Michael

there is also within the policy of the site that you ought to leave someone alone if they wish. so if novice wants barney to engage, they ought to.

What makes anyone on your list good?

the ability to defeat debaters who have a high win record against people who are defined as "good".

Not sure why whiteflame would say that.
"Under Open Voting any member eligible to vote, may do so freely within the voting period"
This was the only line I could find restricting who can vote, with "eligible" being defined by meeting the following:
"Complete at least two rated debates which are eligible for moderation, each containing no more than a single forfeiture, using the open voting system (as opposed to judicial selection).
OR
Make 100 non-spam forum posts.
"

-->
@Vici

What makes anyone on your list good?

Reply only with arguments that you made in the debate.

-->
@K_Michael

I was informed that this was logically possible within the site, however, the moderator who revealed this information to me what whiteflame, and considering how incompetent he is, it is not unexpected that he would display ignorance of what will and will not be upheld on this platform.

-->
@Novice_II

"all of my subsequent debates will have rules that bar certain people from voting. These rules will be purposed towards preventing the expressions of incompetent people from influencing the outcomes. Some examples of people who I would as a general rule note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi, FLRW, Shila, etc. all of which are trolls who lack understanding of basic logic."

You can't stop people from voting on your debates. Even if you put in the description "no Barney votes" or something, they will still be able to, and so long as they uphold the Voting Policy, will not be removed even if you report it.

-->
@K_Michael

Well, I was being sarcastic if not apparent.

-->
@Novice_II

"ther may be voters who are not willing to do anything that may introduce the risk of upsetting them because that is clearly one of the worst things that could happen. "

What exactly do you think would happen if Barney or Oromagi got upset?

And there could be underlying reasons people vote to protect Oromagi and Barney as well. They could be personal, or more so emotional. For instance, ther may be voters who are not willing to do anything that may introduce the risk of upsetting them because that is clearly one of the worst things that could happen. The fact of the matter is, it is a peculiar issue. Because of this, all of my subsequent debates will have rules that bar certain people from voting. These rules will be purposed towards preventing the expressions of incompetent people from influencing the outcome of a given debate. Some examples of people who I would, as a general rule, note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi, FLRW, Shila, etc. all of which are trolls who lack understanding of basic logic.

-->
@whiteflame

I also want to attack the source votes from Michael and public choice. please observe the voting policy, saying when points are not given.

Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).

Look at Barneys sources

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).

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).

it's just linking common knowledge things - ie the site leaderboard, his profile, and his past debates.

this site is wholly flawed - when it comes to say novice vs oromagi debate, the rational mad mans vote for novice (very lengthy and deeply rooted in logic) was removed on the grounds that there was speculation of it being "retaliation" (such subjective and whimsical evidence, contrary to say "rational mad man did not provide good proof), despite the fact that every vote here is retaliating. It is clear that there is a very very strong bias to protect the likes of oromagi barney.

"Another issue is scope of the debate. Pro says in the description, written by himself, that this is only about DART yet uses DDO to regard Tejretics as a good opponent for whiteflame to have defeated and starts an entire contention that cuts his case in half, slaughtering the first contention in its entirety."

ok well even wifi accept that this is a slip up, the veracty of my argument isn't changed if you remove Tejectics - there are the others

Oromagi
bmdrocks21
blamonkey
RationalMadMan
Ehyeh
Undefeatable
Intelligence
MrChris

which qualify whole heartedly.

-->
@whiteflame

" The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points."

do you think voters ought to address the HEART of an argument? don't you see that the argument which Michael addressed as being strong was addressed? I"ll draw the issue. This is like someone argues the problem of evil, and I respond with free will defence, but as well the as free will defence, I also provide the Ontological argument. Imagine if my opponent then said "I proved the problem of evil and the ontological argument doesn't disprove this". OBVIOUSLY, I proved the FREE WILL DEFENCE, not the ontological argument which was a SEPERATE ARGUMENT. Do you not see that it is just wrong the line Michael went down?

-->
@Barney
@K_Michael
@Vici

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote. If the contents of this vote were only specific to a dropped point presented by Pro, that would be a problem, but the reasoning this voter gives as central to his decision - that the description confines what can be discussed to what is present on this site - is sufficiently explained and covers other points made in the debate.
The voter also sufficiently analyzes sources, taking specific examples from both debaters for comparison.
**************************************************

I just realized this is posted under "economics"

-->
@Barney

That word is spelled rationale not rational, FYI.

-->
@Vici

"The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote."

Whiteflame has already passed judgment on the argument portion and found it acceptable.

-->
@whiteflame

Unfortunately, I must report this once again, for the argument points remain poor. The vote still says.

"Pro's ONLY counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description."

The entire vote is hinged on an argument which I WILLINGLY DROPPED after the very first line, and the argument was itself a kritik so it was never the heart of my argument. Furthermore, the arguments which actually created conversation "my argument one and argument two", where never mentioned. Right now, this vote is akin to someone voting against a debater because their final sentence which summarises their arguments with some tongue and cheek is not sufficient. The ESSENSE and MAJORITY of my argument has been ignored.

-->
@K_Michael

Thank you for revoting with the rational for sources extended.

-->
@Barney
@K_Michael
@Vici

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:
Debate description reads: "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it"
All of Con's arguments are based on statistics gathered on the DART site. They unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description. Arguments to Con
Con provides the most valuable sources, as well as an impressive amount of BTS math on his own rankings. Sources to Con
S&G are equal. I had no difficulty reading/understanding either argument, nor did I notice any egregious errors. Tied.
I was tempted to take conduct points from Pro as I find the premise of the argument itself disrespectful, but I suspect that it violates the voting policy somehow, and anyway, he was civil during the debate itself.
As a critical note I wish someone had taken the time to define "good" in this debate. It was danced around very loosely and while I feel the arguments themselves were unambiguous, it was left to the voter to decide how they should evaluate the arguments in terms of the claim itself. RM or Intelligence (as well as myself) would almost definitely not have left this unaddressed, and I personally feel the debate suffers for it.

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote.
However, the voter does not sufficiently justify sources. The voter must evaluate sources presented by both debaters to award this point, but only covers sourcing given by Con.
**************************************************

-->
@whiteflame

Easy, thanks a bunch for all of your help!

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.

-->
@Vici

Have to get to bed early tonight, I'll aim to get to this tomorrow.

also, I wasn't saying your mother would rather have had a period than you, unless you reported my post?

Did you just expose yourself?

well you can vote but you can be sure that if the vote is bad, I will be after you (in the sense that I will question you rigioursly)

-->
@Vici

Because you are a toxic person that I do not want spamming me abuse or telling me that my mother would rather have had a period than had me.

You only like me when it suits you.

I don't think there is such a thing. I truly think I won and I'm not putting up the crazy raged insultive persona but I seriously think I proposed a metric (conceptually uncontested meaning that Barney doesn't disagree that that is how we ought judge a good debater, he only disagreed by saying he met that standard) which cut at barney. Also what was that thing which the debate came down to you thought which you mentioned a while ago.

also I don't know why you blocked me I rather I like you.

-->
@Vici

Would you like someone to vote against you with a good vote?

Why is everyone voting against me in such poor votes? I mean this genuinely - im just a guy here who wants to have some good quality debates, and who wishes for some engaging voters. All I wish for is just some voters who will put their predisposed biases away - I know this is difficult because Barney has indeed had great debates in debate.org, but I really wanted to just look at him now as he is.

-->
@whiteflame

Again, im sorry for reporting another vote but there are truly many bad voters here. K_Michael said

"Pro's ONLY counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description."

I think the voter is weighing the entire debate on Argument three: No one on this site is a good debater, however, this is clearly to ignore argument one and two. Furthermore, I actually did drop that argument and instead pursued the first two, which got 0 consideration from the voter. It was also clear that the argument which Michael is referring to is a kritik - being a mere small bit of the debate which is not to be conflated with the meat of the debate.

-->
@K_Michael

I agree that a clear standard for good debater going in would have improved matters. With the low character limit, some of my commentary on that ended up on the cutting room floor.

People continue to say stuff like this about every "noob sniper" or whatever you want to call this. If you win, then it's not cheating, it's technique. The alternative is RM, who pours a massive amount of effort into the site and has a huge quantity of debates. Neither strategy is particularly indicative of argumentative skill so much as it is exploitation of the Elo system, and while I personally respect RM's method more, I wouldn't call him the "best" debater on the site.

-->
@Barney
@Undefeatable
@Vici

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:
Commentary: This debate might actually be a difficult one for Barney since his only real evidence would be his RFD’s and defeating Oromagi previously on DDO.

RFD: 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. However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes. 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 assertions with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. Still, I do agree he’s shown insightful analysis from the bit of evidence he’s given, but his source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument.

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does assess arguments given by both debaters, but the decision itself hinges on an argument the voter says Con made that isn't present in the debate:

"However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes"

Unless it is clarified within the RFD where Con made this argument, the voter cannot base his decision on an argument not given in the debate.
**************************************************

-->
@whiteflame

thank you

-->
@Vici

I’ll take a look at it when I get a chance.

-->
@whiteflame

Could you please remove the vote? The voter said "However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes" even though Con never manages "debate analysis" thought "his votes", a fact which is also acknowledged by barney in comment 64.

-->
@Undefeatable

what do you think of my criteria for a good debater and the combined record metric?

-->
@Barney

No problem. It was a very interesting debate to read.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thank you for voting.

However, I don’t recall using my vote history (as extensive as it is) as evidence. A case could be made that good at voting equals good at debating, but I did not draw that link.

-->
@Public-Choice

Thank you for voting.

-->
@Vici

Stop being a whiny little b**** please. You might be more sensitive than Novice_II, and that says something.

-->
@Vici

It’s a legitimate way of reading the debate going into it, one based in the text of the description. You can chalk that up to “predisposed belief” if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that his vote meets the required standards.

-->
@whiteflame

"He seems to be straight up telling you that any response doesn't sufficient"

yeah well nothing I can do then right? predisposed beliefs are too powerful.