Instigator / Pro
15
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic

Bsh1 is a better overall debater then Rational Madman

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
6
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
3

With 3 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
18
1672
rating
283
debates
66.96%
won
Description
~ 257 / 5,000

1: The BoP is shared.
2: I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point.
3: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.

Round 1
Pro
I waive this round because of the rules.
Con
Bsh1, who is supposedly better than RM, needed Alec to come represent him. Sure, it's possible it's like this:

Alec>Bsh1>RM
or even
Bsh1>Alec>RM

But, truth be told, everyone worth their salt on this site knows shit's really like this:

RM>Bsh1>Alec and it's about time I put things out exactly like they are.

I am going to do a strange thing to 'prove' timestamp worthiness of a screenshot.

Here is the debate list next to leaderboard:

Here is the same screenshot after I comment with that image.

Notice that no special ordering of the lists are used yet now this debate appears on top. this is due to the following comment I posted in real-time:


I am rated above bsh1 as is,. I accepted this debate under the 'is' appklying to the point of accepting and something as early as me posting this Round. Even if bsh1 surpasses me by the end of this debate in site Rating, that is irrelevant as that is 'would become' or 'will be' and not 'is' relative to the debate resolution and time of accepting it.

The 'publication date' of this debate will help you realise when exactly the 'is' is applying to. I have given evidence here.

When we say 'overall debater' we also have to consider if RM is just a debate spammer and bsh1 is better by debating less. This is a lie and what seems like careless noobsniping is carefully crafted genius. RM brought Type1 to the website intentionally. Now RM has both the most debates (https://i.imgur.com/HmrJZ9G.png) and is basically annihilating everyone other than Type1 in consistency of having debates. Type1 only gets close to equal to RM by losing nonstop and third place for most debates only is surviving Elo-wise because RM was feeling a little overwhelmed one day due to the amount and forgot he hwas having a debate as well as forgiving Virtuoso when the tables were turned:

Lack of Mercy to RM beforehand:

Mercy:


RM also had a win robbed here and there by troll last-minute voters:



Despite all this RM is objectively rated above Bsh1, who is able to moderate troll-votes against him instantly whereas RM is at the mercy of Bsh1 to have votes removed, and is insanely better at both work ethic and just general output as a debater online. 


Round 2
Pro
Bsh1, who is supposedly better than RM, needed Alec to come represent him. Sure, it's possible it's like this:

Alec>Bsh1>RM
or even
Bsh1>Alec>RM

I think it's Bsh1>RM>Alec in terms of debating skill but this isn't about me.  It’s about you vs Bsh1

Your main argument is that you are a better debater then Bsh1 because you have a higher rating than him on DART(Debate Art).  While this is true, you know where Bsh1 has a much higher Elo than you? On DDO. On DART, you beat RM by less than 100 pts. On DDO, Bsh1 is ranked #3 out of tens of thousands of participants(6) on DDO and he beat you by over 5000 Elo points.(1)(2)  I would say that 5000 ELO points is significantly worth more than 100 DART points due to the fact that 5000 is 50x more numerous then 100.  I know a DART point is worth more than a DDO point, but is it really more 60x more valuable?

To compare your current records from DART, your record in a W-T-L format is 40-7-8.(3)
Your DDO record is 12-15-0
Therefore, your combined record is 52-22-8
Bsh 1’s current records from DART in a W-T-L format is 5-1-0.
His DDO record is 152-13-7(4)(5)
Therefore, his total record is 157-14-7

Since he has lost slightly less and won significantly more, by over 100 wins, I think it’s safe to say that Bsh 1 is better.

Sources:



Back to you RM.

Con
After some time thinking deeply about this topic it comes down to something as simple as this; you haven't proven a thing here.

Seriously, you haven't even proven that bsh1 is better than me at anything other than, perhaps, not losing a debate. Not losing is NOT the same as the skill of winning a debate. Not losing a debate includes the capacity to avoid a debate that is going to be too shaky and adaptability-requiring. 

Let me put it like this to you, darling Alec:

I was banned 3-4 months into my membership on DDO (fact-check it all you want, I am not gonna 'prove it' as it involves looking at alts and admitting things about who is and isn't an alt which will then expose other things and require me to prove it even was me). In those 3-4 months I have 2-3x the debates that Bsh1 had in 5-6 years. This isn't a joke and isn't to say I'm better due to that alone. I want to make it clear that I am the only debater other than people like vi_spex on DDO or like Type1 here who can keep up so many debates and get at least a 50/50 winrate let alone a very positive one. On top of that, I maintain honor, even getting a debate deleted 2-3 weeks back that Wylted, who so fervently posted in the comments here that I have no honour, was genuinely shocked that I got deleted despite him having accepted and autoloss debate based on a misinterpretation of my resolution where he fully agreed with me on the actual resolution. Even in this debate, I could have won by abusing the 'then' letting you be confused as to what I was doing and, if you weren't ready to waive R1, I could have abused that too. I constantly am making sure my enemy has fair footing in debates. This is something I always have done and always will do. Bsh1 sets up maximal rules waaaay on top of normal debate rules, let alone site rules, that angle everything in his favour. From the inability of Con/Opp to Kritik assumptions in the resolution's framework to constantly outlawing 'troll-stances' and other severely subjective things that he can and has used against his opponent and to gear the voters in his favour but that's not important nor do I have to prove it to win this debate.

See, I am not better than bsh1 purely because I work literally over 10x his capacity speed-wise and have done consistently over the 5-6 years since he and I shared online debating love and prowess. I can't even quantify my training or experience, it's that huge and complex. From the dirty areas of the Internet where I explored how to debate with abusive trolls to the cleanest places like Facebook where I learned how to politely engage pseudo-agreement to find common ground with fairly full minded sheep, I learned all kinds of debating and tactics. I learned how humans work and interpret things not even from debating but my experience as a professional online poker player and the 'interpreting interpretation' involved with playing it at a high level both psychologically and based on what you think the enemy is interpreting statistically (which in its own way is psychology). I gain debate wins and honourably agree to ties and even risk losses, like on my recent electronic music battle where the rematch is proving that I learn rapidly and adapt at a very high rate in quality of judge-pleasing (rematch is 2-1 https://www.debateart.com/debates/453 as is whereas other debate I lost 5-4 https://www.debateart.com/debates/431). I have been through the depths of trolls of CreateDebate, the highly moderated sheep-think clinical environment of Debate Island, been on the outskirts of the brutal mob mentality social landscape of DDO and have come back like a god damn champion even helping fund this site in ways bsh1 hasn't in any apparent way other than to 'work for it' with the reward of unquestioned power even by the admin himself.

We are in a place where bsh1 has all the upper hand, where I fight honorably even risking it all against the lowest ranked member of the site on a brutally easy debate to troll-vote me into defeat on: Rap taste battle (must explain the vote a little bit, please minimum 2 paragraphs)

What's the catch? There isn't one. I am risking it all. I even bring it up here knowing you can vote against me and laugh. I know what it means to risk, I know what it means to be a real deal warrior that even your worst enemy on the site finds something to respect about. That's the difference between me and bsh1, I risk it all, experiment like no other wiling to look like a complete and utter idiot and yet I outdo them all, including those working as hard and fast as me, because I am simply... Better.

You have stated his 'overall stats' okay sure, he has a very high percentage but what you forgot is on DDO there were and are more noobs than here to farm from. Him being higher than the thousands of troll and noob accounts is not proof of anything much. You also forget that back in the day DDO had literally no vote moderation and many of Bsh1's early 30-40 wins was when you literally had to counter vote-bomb. You have no fucking clue how great a debater I am because I was permabanned from DDO and still I gathered wins with -0 loss in the environment that bsh1 did... Oh you forgot that didn't you, you could forfeit on any debate you felt you hadn't won due to the forfeit glitch. That's why he didn't lose.

Prove me wrong, go ahead.


0 losses, it's easy to work out when you're about to lose and forfeit, I know, I did it and you can't even catch me unless I reactivate the account.

Round 3
Pro
“Seriously, you haven't even proven that bsh1 is better than me at anything other than, perhaps, not losing a debate. Not losing is NOT the same as the skill of winning a debate. Not losing a debate includes the capacity to avoid a debate that is going to be too shaky and adaptability-requiring. ”  As I confirmed in the previous round, both you and Bsh1 have had wins, ties, and losses.  As for your latter point, on DART, Bsh1 instigated pretty tough debates to win, such as with polygamy.  He won it against someone easy, but the ability to win in a polygamy debate when your on the pro side of the debate takes skill.  I don’t mean to be rude, but you lost that debate, albeit at someone who’s skill is unclear since they only competed once. Their profile page says they are a filipino supremist, so they might not be a strawman too(1).

“I want to make it clear that I am the only debater other than people like vi_spex on DDO or like Type1 here who can keep up so many debates and get at least a 50/50 winrate let alone a very positive one.”  This might be because you may have more time on your hands then people like me or Bsh1.  

You basically state that you are a better debater then Bsh1 because you take chances that he doesn’t take.  Let's examine his rules for debates. They are:


1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the descriptions set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

I wouldn’t have all these rules in my debate, but it seems okay that Bsh1 would have these rules in his debate.  Rule #5 especially makes it harder for him to win because it essentially prevents easy wins.

You debated with Bsh1 on something and he won(2)

“From the dirty areas of the Internet where I explored how to debate with abusive trolls to the cleanest places like Facebook where I learned how to politely engage pseudo-agreement to find common ground with fairly full minded sheep”  Who’s to say that Bsh1 didn’t learn the same thing?  Who’s to say that he has strategies that you don’t?

you could forfeit on any debate you felt you hadn't won due to the forfeit glitch.”  He lost a few times, so it’s not he forfeit on every debate that he felt he was going to lose.  3 states that many of the debates that he lost were debates hard to win.  An example of this is UHC, where he was Pro. UHC is a position that in the US, is only backed by the green party (look it up if you don’t believe me).  It’s a far left position to take. He only forfeit 2 debates(4).  Assuming he lost both of these, he still would have a significantly higher Elo than you would.  You lost a few times on this site, so it’s safe to say that you would lose on DDO if you had 174 debates.


Sources:

1: https://www.debateart.com/participants/thett3
2: https://www.debateart.com/debates/118
3: https://www.debate.org/bsh1/debates/lost/

Con
Round waived as per agreed debate-structure.