Barney accused Novice of following him to his house

1702

rating

568

debates

68.13%

won

Description

Getting to the truth of a long-term claim.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8000-can-anyone-beat-barney?page=2&post_number=37
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.

AND

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8000-can-anyone-beat-barney?page=3&post_number=75
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.

...

UPDATE:
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

03.06.2023 08:33PM

Con

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.

Preamble:

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.

Sources:

03.13.2023 08:28PM

Pro

Two questions will be answered:

Can we trust Barney to be honest about his hidden meanings?
Does his gaslighting of Novice help us reach the truth of this resolution?

Round 2

03.18.2023 04:31AM

Con

1. Never Happened:

Extend.

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].

Sources:

03.25.2023 02:42AM

Pro

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

03.25.2023 04:25AM

Con

1. Never Happened:

Extend.

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.

Sources:

03.25.2023 06:04AM

Pro

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.

04.11.2023 06:00AM

#34

-->

@Savant

Thank you for the vote!

03.27.2023 03:49PM

#33

-->

@RationalMadman

Thank you for the debate!

While this wasn't either of our best offerings, it was nice to go head to head with you.

03.26.2023 12:39AM

#32

-->

@Barney

No problem!

03.25.2023 11:37PM

#31

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

-> When did this beef between y’all start?

I don't remember him from DDO, so I'd say shortly after this site started. The earliest negative interaction I can find is in a thread discussing how the site itself could handle forfeitures.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655-auto-loss-for-forfeits?page=1&post_number=17

Oh, and thank you for voting!

03.25.2023 07:24PM

#30

The whole debate.:

Pro: I HATE this debate!

Con: ok

Pro: This was rigged against me from the start and I accepted, knowing this! I know people will vote against me but because I’m right, I expect them to take it easy on me!

Con: Extend.

*Con wins.*

😂😂😂

03.25.2023 06:14PM

#29

-->

@Intelligence_06

Thank you for voting.

03.25.2023 06:51AM

#28

-->

@RationalMadman

@Barney

When did this beef between y’all start?

03.14.2023 02:11PM

#27

-->

@RationalMadman

I’ll delay posting my round until Friday. And if Michael gets functionality restored in time, I’ll also gladly change this to unrated if you’d like.

03.14.2023 11:39AM

#26

-->

@Intelligence_06

more voters will actually uphold that if the other side is making an abusive truism debate.

I won't say more. I'll let this play out. I can potentially snipe it in Round 2 but would much rather this a proper 3 round debate as intended

Intelligence_06

03.14.2023 11:37AM

#25

-->

@RationalMadman

Disproving a disproof is not a proof.

03.14.2023 11:28AM

#24

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

It's whatever, the tournament takes priority to me and I ended up swamped with work and stuff

03.14.2023 11:28AM

#23

-->

@Barney

if you redo the challenge or even ask me to do it with me posting rounds first as the instigator, rated, can we please redo that novice challenge. Life got in the way. I am so busy until Friday

03.13.2023 08:42PM

#22

Perhaps, I was wrong.

03.13.2023 08:12PM

#21

-->

@RationalMadman

Friendly reminder that your opening argument is due.

03.06.2023 04:12AM

#20

Okay, this will be interesting.

03.06.2023 03:47AM

#19

The tags are hilarious. 😂😂😂

03.06.2023 03:38AM

#18

With less than a week remaining, and Novice committing to his best Brave Sir Robin impersonation, anyone at all is welcome to accept the challenge. If nothing else, you’ll be instantly proven to be a better debater than him.

https://youtu.be/jYFefppqEtE

03.01.2023 08:47AM

#17

-->

@AustinL0926

Looks like Novice will not allow you to see the evidence to be able to stand in for him.

I’ll open the debate up for any friend of his to accept (assuming he has any). Failing that, maybe just maybe there’s someone left who believes there’s any merit to his words; based on the available evidence not even Novice believes anything he writes but I’ve been surprised before.

02.28.2023 02:17PM

#16

-->

@Bones

This one is a matter of intellectual integrity.

Also research and memory are both academic skills. That the scope is narrow, does not change that.
Not all that different from various debates on if God exists. One person presents their evidence, the other argues that the evidence is insufficient.

Bones

02.28.2023 10:21AM

#15

lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.

Bones

02.28.2023 10:21AM

#14

lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.

Bella3sp

02.27.2023 06:03PM

#13

So, basically a free win for anyone that can show proof that you suggested such words?

With the multiple of posts, that would take a quite long time especially if you went through all that only to be proved wrong.

Mharman

02.27.2023 05:37PM

#12

Uhhhhh ok

02.27.2023 04:43PM

#11

-->

@Mharman

Novice lacks the ability to separate reality from his imagination. To such ends he keeps following me around proclaiming me a coward running away from him, in addition to the what amounts to bizarre conspiracies about things I’m supposed to have said about him.

You can read the latest iteration at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4207/comments/50853

There was one person who briefly seemed to believe him, and they had agreed to stand in for him.

…

That said, if Novice is of sound mind, then this is basically a free win for him (or anyone who believes him).

Granted, what I expect to happen is he’ll just keep spewing the same mouth diarrhea as before. As has already happened when I soundly mopped the floor with someone standing in for him (multiple times).

Mharman

02.27.2023 02:54AM

#10

what

02.26.2023 08:08AM

-->

@AustinL0926

As you've previous said: "The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened."
Therefore if Novice is neither insane nor a liar, this would be nearly the easiest win you'll ever have (given an argument time of one week for research; I wanted to make it two but the recent update prevents that).

As per definitions, a fitting set for delusions comes from WebMD "Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it can’t tell what’s real from what is imagined. ... But in reality, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated."
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder

We could simplify it down to repeatedly stating things even when contested, which have no basis in measurable reality. Such as how this debate is an example of how I'm too scared to debate Novice, via challenging him to debate (a direct contradiction to objective reality of me repeatedly challenging him to defend his claims about me). This applies to both lying and insanity, via the Lewis Trilemma I already tagged (either Novice is a liar, madman, or telling the truth; your side would be that he's telling the truth, mine would be a disconcert from reality be it liar or madman).

Melcharaz

02.25.2023 11:09PM

this is mere heresay. unless you can prove that such things did happen, if so then the law should be involved.

this doesnt follow the spirit of a debate, but it does follow the spirit of a criminal trial without deposition and representation or law.

Phenenas

02.25.2023 10:30PM

*grabs popcorn*

Mall

02.25.2023 09:35PM

This site reduced to debating personal dramas.

AustinL0926

02.25.2023 09:18PM

-->

@Barney

Define "repeated delusions" and "compulsive lying".

02.25.2023 09:13PM

-->

@AustinL0926

Everything pertinent is public but hopefully he'll agree to your information request...

Otherwise, do you pre-agree that repeated delusions and/or compulsive lying is proof of an unsound mind?

02.25.2023 09:05PM

-->

@Novice_II

Do you authorize me to share the entirety of our PMs with AustinL0926, to close any information gap?

As you already have access to those, you are of course welcome to rise to the challenge and defend your claims.

AustinL0926

02.25.2023 07:23PM

-->

@Barney

Since I don't have the same information that Novice does, I'm afraid I can't accept. However, I offer a counter-challenge if you're interested in standing by your claims: "THBT Novice_II is of sound mind."

02.25.2023 07:03PM

-->

@Novice_II

@AustinL0926

The debate is now open.

Savant

04.07.2023 10:46AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

CON laid out his argument in an organized manner. PRO did not respond and instead opted to attack CON's character. CON gave sources throughout the debate, PRO did not. PRO all but conceded in the end, they didn't seem interested in addressing any of CON's arguments or forum history showing they had never accused Novice of stalking them in real life. The gaslighting point got thrown right back at PRO, and PRO never responded to it.