Instigator / Con

Barney accused Novice of following him to his house


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 3 votes and with 15 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
Minimal rating
Contender / Pro

Getting to the truth of a long-term claim.
Novice: --> I will ignore all the peculiar theories about me secretly following you around in real life.
Barney: -> No such theories have been presented by anyone other than you. What was pointed to was an online pattern clearly evidenced by your debate comment history.

Novice: --> tangents and rants about various personal problems and/or theories about me following him to his house
Barney: -> As I dislike being lied about and I insist you are lying, I'll happily accept a debate challenge from you on if that actually occurred on this site instead of merely inside your imagination.

Novice has stood by his claims as factual for about six months now. The claim is clearly that I have made up stories of him turning into a real life stalker as opposed to an online stalker. He also claims I am too afraid to debate anyone, which is self evidently false so it would be unfair to debate that.

No more dodging and accusing me of dodging (AKA gaslighting 101), it's time for proof to be presented or yield that Novice's claims are B.S.

BoP is of course on pro, as I cannot prove the negative.
If Novice speaks the truth, then this is basically a free win by sharing a simple link to a forum post or debate comment from me which matches the allegation (again, something to the effect of him following me to my house, not merely following me around online; and quoting him does not count). If no such link can be presented, then pro loses.


While this topic was intended for Novice_II (AKA Novice), AustinL0926 agreed to champion him before it turned out that Novice is opposed to Austin seeing the evidence. Therefor, any friend of Novice and/or anyone who believes anything he writes is welcome to accept.

Round 1
Thank you RationalMadman (RM) for gallantly stepping in for Novice when he was unable.
In addition to being the single most committed debater (four times as many debates as anyone else); you are the Matt Murdock of this site, truly the Man Without Fear.

This debate should be straightforward, as described in the above description.
Either there is evidence that things happened as Novice repeatedly described them and continues to insist actually happened, or there is no evidence so it must be concluded they did not happen. This is especially true for a text based setting, in which what people posted can be referenced with perfect accuracy.

1. Never Happened:
To make things easy, I’m basically giving guiding links to help pro in their research.

Forum Posts
My forum post history does not align with Novice’s uncanny interpretation of reality. The time period in question currently begins around page seven of my forum posts [1].

Debate Comments
My debate comment history likewise does not align with Novice’s accounting. This can be verified beginning at page eight of my debate comment history [2].
This is a jump to nine months but there was no discussion between us from months four through eight.

Two questions will be answered:
  1. Can we trust Barney to be honest about his hidden meanings?
  2. Does his gaslighting of Novice help us reach the truth of this resolution?

Round 2
1. Never Happened:

Memory and Integrity
To add to the above, I’m a combat veteran with TBI affecting my memory (1). However, memory problems do not make me gullible; if someone says something absurd such as Apollo 11 used the amazing farts of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as propellant to reach the moon, I dismiss them as both crazy and stupid.

Getting biblical, Matthew 7:15-20 tells us:
“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions” [2].

This connects because I have integrity. Therefore, I need not remember every conversation I’ve had, to know if words people claim I spoke match the type of thing I’d say. Not long ago I had to disown my cousin in large part because he was making up a story about how I used time travel to be patient zero for COVID-19 in Nebraska (and that I hadn't yet caught the virus as proven by repeated testing, was in itself yet more proof of my supernatural powers…). I wish I could time travel but alas I am only human.

Thankfully here we have a written record, so we can verify who is gaslighting who.

2. “Hidden Meanings”:
By all means present a quote from me which in some way implies the truth of the claim.

From the debate description
“The claim is clearly that I have made up stories of him turning into a real life stalker as opposed to an online stalker.” AND “something to the effect of him following me to my house, not merely following me around online” 

3. “Gaslighting”:
This is an interesting example of how hidden meanings could be shown.

Pro by inference in usage has implied he wishes the definition of gaslighting to be changed to being the target of gaslighting. While he has not explicitly said it, for his words to be anything other than a non-sequitur that hidden meaning must be the case.

Actual Gaslighting
Novice has followed me around on this site for a prolonged period, figuratively smearing feces across his face and proclaiming that I therefore look bad in comparison to his poor hygiene. For a recent example, he complained that me wanting to debate means I’m a coward “running” away from him [3]. Which brings up the Lewis Trilemma in which either he speaks the truth, or suffers Mouth Diarrhea (be it due to being a compulsive liar  and/or mental illness) [4].

That Novice is incompetent at gaslighting, does not change that he is committing to it feebly.
Indeed, his skill at it is about as good as the fighting prowess of the chickens battling Sandor Clegane in A Game of Thrones [5].

I don't really give a shit about this debate quite honestly.

I could prove that Barney lies about his intent and twists situations etc and all that but then voters may not give a shit anyway. I really don't care about rating anymore even. This is such an empty hobby.

He did say Novice follows him around, there were PMs that Novice feels uncomfortable revealing and it could have happened. You can take that as sufficient proof or ignore it. Barney made an abusive truism debate and didn't realise that the 'accuse' is actually not in the hands of the accuser to define.

If I accuse you of a crime, I cannot take it back later or say it was an accident and have that hold up in court.
Round 3
1. Never Happened:

2. “Hidden Meanings”:
No quotes from me to imply hidden meanings on this topic (nor any other) have been presented. Likewise, there is no evidence of me habitually lying (or ever lying for that matter; not that I haven’t but there’s no evidence here).

3. “Gaslighting”:
Extend, particularly the bit about the chickens.

4. “It Could Have Happened”:
It certainly could have happened. It’s unlikely but I am awaiting your evidence to imply any likelihood.
Without evidence, it’s as empty of an assertion as me claiming that on my average day consists of transforming into a jet, bombing the Russians, and dying by crashing into the sun [1].

As for the evidence that Novice is opposed to anyone reviewing the records; his fear of the truth is yet more dodging. He may think he’s Muhammad Ali floating like a butterfly and stringing like a bee; but he’s far more like the Brave Sir Robin, whom “when danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled” [2].

5. “Abusive Truism”:
This was hilariously self refuted in the same sentence. If there’s grounds to argue the evidence may be against me (such as by presenting any quote which resembles the accusations), then it’s not a truism. 

Further, some people actually believe the diarrhea Novice discharges from his mouth (as evidenced by him repeatedly getting other people to stand in for him when he’s too afraid to debate). Therefore, public opinion is also not overwhelmingly in my favor.

If anything, this is more akin to a gentleman's wager. Such as someone betting money McGregor would defeat Mayweather in 2017 [3]; for which there was a real chance McGregor would win, it was unlikely but there was a chance. When it’s time to pay after the hits are all tallied, someone does not get paid for betting on the losing side just because it’s somehow “abusive” that they lost so badly; nor is the slowest person in the race declared the winner out of pity.

Novice followed you to your apartment and you misled us that it was a house, you elohungry troll.

Oromagi, Novice and you are the same fucking thing, sitting scared shit, preying on the weak.

Step into a tournament and I will see you as a real debater.