Instigator / Pro
15
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#459

Bsh1 is a better overall debater then Rational Madman

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.