Instigator / Pro

Barney is not a good debater (finale) @Barney


Waiting for the instigator's second argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Required rating
Contender / Con
~ 1,171 / 5,000

topic: Barney is not a good debater.
After Barney complaining that he is still better than me, I have decided to run it for real. Let's go -lot of characters, two weeks for argument. Let's see who the real boss is. If Barney wins, I will leave this site forever - I will have my account banned and I will never come back. This is the ultimatum. Although, I'm sure Barney will not accept because in the forums he has already said he doesn't believe I wrote my argument.
terms -
:forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary
: of high quality; excellent.
: a quantity/quality or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean:
: of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient:
All definitions come directly from (I added the word quality in the definition of average so that we know we are talking about quality here)
1. Only Barney may accept this debate. If anyone else accepts, you will be disqualified.
3. As with the terms above, just use dictionary definitions.
4. we are arguing about whether Barney's performance on makes him a good debater.

Round 1
In the previous debate on this I opted to stay wholly positive, for sake of variety I am exploring the other path. Therefore, I shall prove my case based on the low quality of the average.
In the comments my opponent claims to have elected to wait until 30 minutes before their argument was due before beginning to write their case in the evening of November 19th [1]. They claim to have managed to write an impressive 5710 characters in that time without any major errors. Said document indicates it was ready sometime on the18th, with numerous visitors already [2]. Nice to know I’m battling an argument by committee, but it’s far from the first time I’ve bested group efforts. However, this is the first instance they’ve claimed to use time travel [3].
Anyways, an unending series of insults in the comment section, intentionally waiting for very last moments in a two-week window to post, followed by calling me “friend” and begging for are-do on the rematch… Just doesn’t give me any reason to grant the request.
This is clearly centric to this website, ruling out other websites on which I have participated. Were it not, then my performance outside this site must be considered against the average persons: I used debating to save dozens of lives via educating sick villagers in Iraq how to clean their drinking water against the wisdom of their elders; saving many of their kids from the 2nd leading cause of death among children worldwide [45].This has been documented on this site and unchallenged for more than three years (not counting anti-ethical people being offended that more children didn’t die). It is self-evident that the average debater has saved substantially less lives.

Burden of Proof
As pro initiated the debate and is making the claim against my skill level, primary BoP rests with them. Were we debating from a tabula rasa standard where nothing is pre-known, then the otherwise common knowledge source the leaderboard would decisively win the debate for me, as I’m ranked 5th out of 666 debaters [6].
Obviously if I am on balance at or belong average in skill, then I am not a good debater.
If my opponent is right, they should cite the offerings of the average debater whom they claim I am equal or less than in skill.
I should note that I am using those who rise to the challenge of formal debates as the population of comparison. Were we to look at all site members, then I am several more magnitudes above the average who never enter the arena. Likewise, were we to entertain using the average person in the world (everyone argues), then their billions of null offerings would be assumed against my cited examples in this debate.
1. The Average Sucks:
Average = Bad

Out of a sample of 666 debaters, roughly half of them full forfeit, and never come back [6]. Whereas I have zero forfeitures, which already sets me many standard deviations above the arithmetic mean.
On average, the top 30 debaters only win 82% of the time. The average ranked debater only wins 25% of the time[7]. Whereas I win 100% of the time, for a ratio of 38:0. Were I average among the top, statistically I would have lost 7 of those 38 debates; and were I average among all debaters, I would have lost 29 of those 38 debates.
Worth Reading
The average debater gives no offering worth reading. Of 2,316 debates, the most anyone has voted for was 986, with second place being a sharp decline to 689. Hundreds of debates go unread and unvoted; with the average debate getting just 2 votes, but mine going as high as 17 votes. Worse, these numbers include full forfeitures, which people need not read before voting.
One of my debates is rated the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) by readers [8]. While it should be obvious, the average person cannot produce that level of quality, nor reasoning abilities. And as for debates being able to be entertaining hurting some people’s feelings, I also have serious debates on the topic, including one where I handedly defeat the pro-life belief that women are real estate instead of people [9].
Changed Opinions
Single issue voters are a problem plaguing society, with pro-life voters being the most notorious [10]. My debates even turn pro-life voters around; and not just in cases of forfeitures (for which many pro-life voters will still refuse to even consider voting against their bias) [8].While I do not think this is extraordinary, I expect the average debater has failed to convince anyone to vote against their bias.
The average debater has written zero useful guides to debating topics; and zero guides period. I have multiple extremely useful ones [11, 12], which sets me leagues above the average. As evidence of them being useful, the best debaters directly emulate my style, such as the #1 debater on the leaderboards [13], and who estimates that were we to debate: “I’d say 9 times in 10, [Barney] would win” [14].
As per any suggestion that this doesn’t imply debating skill: Debating is a mental sport of persuasion, and I have persuaded the best to emulate me.
Due to the likelihood that my opponent will try to compare me to the great philosophers throughout history: Aside from being outside the obvious scope of this debate, it’s an invalid comparison. To be good, I only need to be high quality compared to the average. And let’s face it, look back at how many people riot instead of using reason. Hell, look back at the 2020 United Stated presidential election, in which about half the votes went to a perverted, mentally delinquent, evil, old white guy (arguably 98.1% did).

2. Syllogism:
  • P1: If a debater is shown to be better than the average, they are good.
  • P2: I (Barney) am significantly better than the average.
  • C1: Therefore, I am a good debater.
P1 is true by definitions within this debate, even further supported by the limited scale pro insisted upon (Exceptional> Good > Average > Bad).
P2 is shown throughout contention1, as the average debater gives deficient offerings when compared against me.
This is not to say the average is inherently bad; merely that their debating skill leaves much to be desired when compared to members of the top 99th percentile.

Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet