Instigator / Pro
Points: 15

Bsh1 is a better overall debater then Rational Madman

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 18
Description
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
Published:
I waive this round because of the rules.
Published:
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
Published:
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.

Published:
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
Published:
“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/

Published:
Round waived as per agreed debate-structure.
Added:
That’s... not helpful.
#23
Added:
Liar
Contender
#22
Added:
Name who? The styles of debate where this is allowed?
#21
Added:
--> @whiteflame
Name them
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Just to be clear about this, RM, I actually agree with @Ramshutu on this one. A new point is one that is not directly responsive to an argument given in the previous round. New data, i.e. evidence to support an argument already given, is valid in most forms of debate. You can argue that it's abusive in its own right, and I can understand that view, but there are a lot of people who would take the perspective that it's absolutely fine.
#19
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
It was BRAND NEW data. He only beat me because only one biased voter voted on the debate on the environment, there's much more to this than you think.
Contender
#18
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
When your opponent uses quotation marks (“like this”) around stuff you said I the previous round, and then provides a reason to discount that information this is called a “rebuttal”, a new point, is where a new piece of information, unrelated to the “ rebuttal” or other “arguments” is added out of the blue.
At the most charitable, he made one new point, and even that is kinda borderline in the context of everything said and didn’t end up changing any of the weighting decision.
#17
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
There's no point reasoning with you on your votes, I've come to learn that.
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
His “new points” were rebuttals to your points in the previous round.
#15
Added:
--> @Raltar
You're o ly heating me by not voting but do what you want.
Contender
#14
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
He brought new points when I couldn't respond.
Contender
#13
Added:
I mean, hell, they are still at it over two weeks later. It's bad enough when some random user pulls a stunt like that, throwing a massive hissy fit because someone voted against them and refused to play by their obscene list of rules. But when moderators, the people who SUPPOSEDLY enforce the rules, are still crying and whining like two-year-olds even weeks later, there is a serious problem. It isn't even enough for just one moderator to do it either, but he has to call in his buddies to try to back him up.
That kind of piss-poor sportsmanship isn't the sign of a good debater, or an emotionally mature person in general. And just because your sixth-grade debate coach told you something doesn't mean people on the internet have to go along with it.
#12
Added:
I may have to abstain from voting on this, because my opinion on this subject is just too strong.
I firmly believe the the moderators on this site are absolutely AWFUL debaters, which further hurts their credibility as moderators of a site like this...
Bsh1 and Virtuoso both have really awesome formatting and present amazing opening arguments... but their obsession with the formalities of "professional" debate are their downfall. After the opening volley, they literally waste the entire rest of the debate trying to weasel their way into an "easy" victory by setting up convoluted arguments about how their opponent violated some obscure rule... Such as bsh1 harassing a particular voter for several days straight about how "dropped points automatically become true!!!11" Notice how they are among the users who tack pointless and unenforceable extra rules onto the debate description, because they can't argue without all that stuff backing them up.
And as for rating... I've been told that DDO had serious issues with biased voting and abuse, so that fails as an argument in my eyes. And this site isn't much better, since troll debates contribute to rating and are easy to abuse.
Bottom line; Trying to bury your opponent in needless verbage and then claim victory on the basis of a technicality doesn't make someone a good debater.
#11
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Raltar
doesn't matter, you have provided 0 objective way to measure an overall better debater. I will just let the voters decide, tagged please observe that Alec just countered me with mentioning other stats but offered 0 way to convert that into an actual 'better debater' capacity in any overall, objective sense.
Contender
#10
Added:
I am aware bsh1 didn't , on that account, win due to the glitch. If you bring his other account that comes into play and you also need to see what i said about the voting moderation during his rise.
Contender
#9
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This was a frustrating debate to read, mainly because it's not clear what the basis is for evaluating who is a better debater. Pro did about as much as possible to shoot himself in the foot on this issue because the debate description yields no standards by which we can assess who is better, and by yielding his first round, he offered Con the opportunity to do so uncontested.
Admittedly, Con doesn't do much better. In fact, Con makes a mistake that dogs him the rest of the debate: he argues that the rating comparison between him and bsh1 constitute a reason to vote for him. Pro jumps on that point, arguing that the ratings comparison on DDO favors bsh1. Con then has to backpedal and argue that it isn't just about the ratings, talking about how those points were acquired and how that affects our perception of who is the better debater. But all of that is deeply subjective, and Con manages to throw out some points that show that bsh1's rating is well-earned on DDO.
My first instinct is to vote based on ratings. It's clear by the end of the debate that both sides regard ratings as important and representative of how good the debaters are, even if there's some nuance and uncertainty to what those scores represent. The problem is that neither side really justified the usage of ratings, and by the end, both sides seem to acknowledge that that nuance is really all there is to the question of what makes the better debater. The numbers themselves fall away, and we're left with the basic question again, to which I have no clear answer. Both sides present reasons to believe them, but not based on any objective measure or clear criterion. Maybe an extra round or two could have made more sense of this, but I'm left looking at the resolution rather than the arguments at the end of the debate, and that's not a good sign. I can't answer that question cleanly or clearly, and despite Pro's desire to have the last word, he does little to clarify how my vote should go. Given that uncertainty, I say that it's unclear who is the better debater, which means my vote defaults to Con.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This was a debate about who was a better debater. There was no mutually agreed standard or benchmark for what constitutes "better". If there was some objective (or at least mutually agreed) standard for what constituted "better" this would have been a positive rather than normative resolution, with the implication that PRO would bear the sole burden of proof. Here, there is neither an objective nor mutually agreed standard/benchmark for what constituted "better". So, the least unfair way to judge the debate is to impute equal burdens of persuasion. This requires that PRO prove that bsh1 is a better debater overall than RM; but would require CON to prove that bsh1 was NOT a better debater than RM. This can be done in two ways; either by some affirmative showing that RM is better than bsh1, or that they are equally skilled overall.
PRO tried to argue that various debate stats from this site and from debate.org showed that bsh1 was a better debater, as bsh1 had won more and lost less debates than RM, among other reasons. Yet, there was no justification for why those numbers/data points meant that bsh1 was a better debater. To paraphrase RM's rebuttal, the fact that more wins are accumulated does not imply that bsh1 was the better debter because bsh1 could have only taken low-risk debates to artificially inflate his debate stats. The stats were the main point of distinction from PRO's perspective between bsh1 and RM. The implication having been undermined, PRO cannot win. Though, RM did not prove he was better than bsh1 either.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
1.) debate stats.
Con argues he is better than RM based on his debate statistics. Pro points out cons record on DDO in comparison, which appears to show Bsh clearly having better stats. Con objects and attributes lack of losses to forfeits - then claims he does the same thing.
Pro clearly provided more compelling data here.
2.) Bsh avoids complex debates.
Con argues that winning is inaccurate as it means you avoid complex debates. Pro shows this is false by citing two examples (one later) where bsh has a difficult position defended - and one where con losss a similar debate
3.) RM can do multiple debates at a time.
Pro argues this is more related to free time than skill.
4.) Bsh choses rules to make him win.
Pro argues that the rules actually mean its harder for bsh to win.
5.) bsh beat RM.
Pro argues an example of where bsh and Rn met in debate - and RM lost.
6.) bsh forfeits debates he can’t win.
Con admits he did this, pro argues that as bsh has loses, it can’t be argued that he never loses due to the debate forfeit bug.
The objective weight of examples presented here on multiple counts give this one to pro. Pro offers by far more conclusive and objective means to show who is the better debater.