Preamble:
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.
Forfeiture
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.
Scope
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 [
4,
5].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:
Forfeitures
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.
Losses
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.
Guides
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.
Reason
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 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.
"As for arguing I'm bad at debating... It would be a logical paradox, since arguing it well would disprove itself."
Unfortunately you are probably right as the voting is far from tabula rasa here
I had to look up what that was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FMh3YtK_w
Nobody can match Barney’s unbeatable style of Soresu.
Thank you both for voting.
Thank you for voting.
Thanks for voting, and for the Star Wars comparison!
Old Barney Kenobi demonstrating once again why he’s one of the best Jedi.
Given that they claim to have won every debate they lost, I would not expect them to abide by their little bet.
"Forfeited" is such an improved argument over their last offering, that I am not sure if it's possible for me to win. 🙃
As for arguing I'm bad at debating... It would be a logical paradox, since arguing it well would disprove itself.
And the investigation of Vici was put on hold by my request, allowing them to have this rematch. Granted, since the account seems abandoned, it's probably not worth continuing.
Vici did say he will leave the site forever if he loses.
She was quite obviously not an alt and the mods shouldn't have even humored that nonsense.
You offered zero rebuttals to prose contentions so not sure how you expect to win this.
BTW, it would go further to prove you are good by arguing and winning by taking the position you are bad at debating.
Three hours remain for you to post your argument.
It would seem that, if Vici was indeed an alt, that the person behind it has abandoned the account.
Either that or Vici was the victim of a conspiracy!
I've been fine with deleting debates in the past to be extra sporting.
However, I do not care to reward liars. If you're not lying, you should just go back to the 18th again and post it then.
Said document indicates it was ready sometime on the18th,
if you know this then why do you have to be such a fucking jerk? It's not my fault that the fucking site would not let me in. If the site didn't let you in it would be out of your control and I would know that so I would let you remake the argument and post it into the comments. many other debaters have done this in this the past on this site (jeffgoldum)and its all right but you're just such a fucking stuck up cunt that you have to preserve your ego. if you really thought you were good you would think you could beat me on fair grounds, not by site crash.
Funny commentary on Oromagi believing he would lose again to Barney after his lost on DDO. He was probably one of the few tough challengers as he carefully picks his debate and has a weird but succinct style overall. I’m actually not sure who would win on a neutral topic like minimum wage or something.
I messaged Whiteflames 14 minutes after the completing of my round with photographic evidence that the site would not let me in and also that my round was finished. Also, I have spoken to users before this issue took place complaining that the website is often crashing when I get in (therefore more credibility since this has happened before). Could we make a new debate and I'll just send the same thing in because I dont want voters to be confused
I should have time to review this on Monday.
https://justpaste.it/7cfv6
just to make sure you saw it. Thanks!not my fualt there was a site crash of course...
do you not think that this is just the best thing to do lmao
only 9 days so still time for us to delete this debate.
Hello, do you agree that a recreating of the debate is the most virtuous thing to do?
Dont want to bombard, but here is my argumemt https://justpaste.it/7cfv6 posted on the day of the closing of the contest.
Regardless of the source of a given problem, a debate is between two people and the decision to delete said debate requires both sides to agree, absent the case where one side just doesn't show up at all. If you want to let voters decide that instead, you can always just post your R1 here in the comments and argue that voters should consider it as your R1 because of site issues. Otherwise, you'll have to wait and see whether Barney agrees.
as thi was a site issue (prove provided) I request that this debate is deleted immediately. thank you
Do you agree to have this debate deleted, as to allow for a fair chance for both participants?
I was attempting to log in for an hour.
and as shown it wasn't working.
All my other websites were working, discord, Facebook, etc.
hey friend, as you can see, this is a site issue (https://imgur.com/a/HX4sHZw) which was happening before I could submit, and I have a also messaged members of this website at a prior time telling them that I had issues logging into this site. Also, my arguments already done before the due date (https://justpaste.it/7cfv6) so could we create another contest?
hello good friend! Can we make a new debate and when you accept I'll submit an argument as soon as I see you have accepted (the exactly argument in the link I posted yesterday).
If Barney agrees, I can have this debate deleted and you can remake it. Otherwise, whether it was a site bug or anything else, there’s nothing I can do to fix it.
this is not my fault - I have proof I was no able to get into the site and also proof that the argument was ready prior to the date
what the fuck is this - I couldn't even get into the site.
can we confirm that I can submit this as a document
(https://justpaste.it/7cfv6)
observe the date 19th
https://imgur.com/a/HX4sHZw
this fucking started happening and when I tried to get back into the site it started bugging
could I submit this as a form of a document?
I have it in a document and proof that it was complete before the time.
it hasn't been letting me get in
I already finished but it didn't let me post
time to get a coffee and hit the type righter.
oops haven't started
oh so just because I mentioned teject, means that my proof of whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris are somehow null? I think you are lacking in the reason faculty.
Yes, your previous one did.
was my argument reliant on DDO in other words will my argument collapse without DDO yes or no.
To prove me wrong you'd need to hack into the server and edit your previous arguments were relied upon DDO.
relied? Again, since you are illiterate you ignored that whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris have a good record here? and that I mentioned a plethora of examples which prove you wrong? Did my argument rely on DDO? IF YES then you are clearly just not smart.
You didn't prove me wrong. To prove me wrong you'd need to hack into the server and edit your previous arguments were relied upon DDO.
All you did was declare that mixing the data sets together at random doesn't count as using the wrong one so long as some unknown amount of the data is from the right place. Which is mind numbingly stupid.
oh so you've moved away then? first you accuse me of using ddo. then I prove you wrong you move to the "man just post an argument". nice!
Just post your argument if you have one.
oh so then you ignored that whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris have a good record here? Great!
Your sample set of data included records harvested from DDO, reducing the only contention you didn't wholly lose on to be a direct violation of your own rule.
If you wanted to debate that my performance on DDO sucks if we ignore my records from DDO and contrast that against other peoples, that is the debate you should have challenged me to; instead that's the only line of argument anyone thinks you didn't completely lose on, and again, a violation of your own rule.