Instigator / Con

Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM


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 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro

Ramshutu has been accused, by RM, of Grudge voting - voting RM down for reasons other than the genuine intent of the voting guidelines or otherwise making bad votes on a variety of different debates against RM.

These are defined as follows:

1.) “Grudge vote” - an intentional vote against a person due to some personal dislike or animosity rather than a genuine view that they lost a debate.

2.) “Voting RM down against the intent of the CoC”, awarding a vote against RM where the Vote adheres to the CoC, but deliberately omits, distorts or dismisses major facts, arguments or points presented in order to unfairly award points to the other side.

3.) “Bad votes” constitutes votes that contain either extreme or exceptional errors or omissions, or contain major flaws in reasoning or logic over and above what is reasonable to expect in a debate vote.

Pro has burden of proof to demonstrate at least one of these claims are true.

- Debaters must not relitigate the debates in question, IE: this is not about whether the debate position was correct, but where the debate vote was correct.
- RM may not clarify or paraphrase what he meant by something in a debate to challenge vote logic: the votes were not placed against what was in his head - but against what was written. RM must show that the interpretation/logic used by the voter was not a reasonable logical interpretation of the debate text or a logical review of the arguments made - not of that the vote didn’t grasp the argument he was trying to make.
- con waives first round, pro waives final round.
- pro may not make any new accusations in this debate.
- If voters judge these rules to have been substantially violated, arguments and conduct points maybe assigned automatically against the violating side citing the rule violation.

Round 1
Round waived as per the rules.
Reverse BoP manoeuvre and reflection of rules back unto Con
Alright, I know how this debate looks and why Ramshutu made me be Pro ever time he challenged me but it's time to establish something:

I may be Pro, he may be Con but he has secure me defensive positions via the following in the description and also as they are inherently true:

While it's written:
Pro has burden of proof to demonstrate at least one of these claims are true.
This is identical to the philosophy that Con has to prove that what Ramshutu writes in all of his Reason For Deciding votes (RFDs)is true as well. I understand, I have to prove dishonesty but he has to prove honesty first as the burden of proof does lie on the positive claim and everything in a RFD is a positive claim about what happened in the debate. Just as he asks me to do the following:
- Debaters must not relitigate the debates in question, IE: this is not about whether the debate position was correct, but where the debate vote was correct.
- RM may not clarify or paraphrase what he meant by something in a debate to challenge vote logic: the votes were not placed against what was in his head - but against what was written. RM must show that the interpretation/logic used by the voter was not a reasonable logical interpretation of the debate text or a logical review of the arguments made - not of that the vote didn’t grasp the argument he was trying to make.
The absolute same must apply to him relitigating his RFDs, meaning if he elaborates on the RFD and what makes it valid to the debate, he is philosophically violating the very principle on which the rules disallowing me to relitigate my own debate as truly meaning something beyond what's directly written or more valid than it is in the way I presented it.

R1-exempted proofs that will come later as it depends how Con defends against the actual claims I make.

I will give background as to possible motive and such in later Rounds but everything I will bring up there is based on speculation and ways of interpreting someone hating I have an ego among other things like him having a naturally loathing personality towards those out-doing him who are proud of doing so in any over manner, habitually shown in behaviour. I will bring this up in later Rounds.

Cherry-Picking... The Entire technique of Ramshutu's dishonest voting.

The problem with troll debates, is Ramshutu will claim that he was totally entitled to omit but omission isn't really 'honesty' if a vote affects who wins an entire debate based on cherry-picked things in the rap battle or whatever. The same happens in non-troll debates but in a more sophisticated (and thus more exposed) manner. Ramshutu rarely will directly lie (but has done as part of his cherry picking is to justify his false ideas of what I didn't address or I raised that was irrelevant to the debate and/or resolution by cherry picking the very things I brought forth and ignoring that which contradicts his accusation).

I'm going to go chronologically and basically rapid-fire quote RFDs and what's tactically omitted both from the RFD entirely and in justifications of things in the RFD.

The whole debate from both pro and con break down into a discussion about infinite number series. Con makes a series of arguments about infinite number series, and argues what they actually mean, the best summary from his arguments was.

“Pro's argument here is that 0.9r = 0.0r1. This is not true. This is incorrect as it's logically inconsistent with the idea of infinity. By definition, infinity has no end and consequently there is no "after" with something infinite. There is no 1 after 0.0r because there is no "after" in the case of an infinitely long sequence. There is no "final number". Infinity goes on forever. The hypothetical 1 occurring after 0.0r supposed by Pro can't and doesn't happen as it's a logical impossibility.”
This on its own, wins the debate for con on arguments.

^ This is a lie, that on its own doesn't win the debate for Con. The debate's resolution was "1/3 is not actually 0.3r and also 1 doesn't equal 0.9r, the reason the misconception of 1/3=0.3r is accepted by mainstream math is due to a flaw in the decimal number system." and in my entire debate I explained how absolutely everything stated in that quote is false.

I proved that there's an actual indisputable difference between (and midpoint of that difference) 0.9r and 0.0r1:
0.9r05 is the midpoint as the (05) becomes the '10' to then be the '1' in 0.0r1 which is the difference between 0.9r and 1.0r.
^ I said this in R3 to reiterate what I said in Round 1 that was an extended version of this in order to directly combat the very quote that Ramshutu says I never addressed or which made Con win.

However, In the entire RFD by Ramshutu, this is never even registered nor explained how Pro defeated it (because it's actually impossible to defeat as I was debating a truism, not even an opinion so I don't even know how it's possible to argue against what I said). On top of this, I addressed Con saying there is no 1 after the 0.0r, by the following BoP sandwiching of Con where Con either had to admit the difference and midpoint are undeniably existent or Pro had to admit that 0.9r is impossible to be an actual number:
0.9r9 is as irrational a number as 0.0r1. Just because the string of infinite 9s ends in a 9 doesn't at all make it less irrational. The number being the same as those preceding it doesn't make it any less attainable, this is an illusion... A Parlour/Parlor Trick if you will.

Either Pro admits 0.9r(ending in a 9) is impossible to be a number and therefore can't equal 1 or Pro concedes that the 0.0r(ending in a 1) is an actual number and therefore the difference between 0,9r and 1 is real.
^ I say this in Round 1. Con was incapable of dealing with it and defeated themselves in both ways throughout the debate, asserting neither as they knew that would defeat the other and they could only cut off both their paths to meeting BoP at once if they wanted a hope of defeating me... Con lost, objectively. Here is how Ramshutu finished the RFD for that debate:
Pros entire argument effectively relates to variations on a theme to there being a number between 0.9r and 1, which requires them to hold different values: con shows this to be false with his explanation of infinite’s and number sequence. Pro doesn’t provide any convincing rebuttal of this silver bullet argument. Both pros mathematical and “intuitive” arguments were very, very well explained.
This is a lie. I actually just quoted, above that quote here, the exact point in the debate where I made it so that if Con says that there's no '1' at the end of the difference or '05' at the end of the midpoint of that difference then the '9' at the end of 0.9r is impossible as well. Ramshutu omits this to be able to dishonestly justify that I didn't directly address this (I even referred to this in Round 3 again, completely cementing the victory if voters were not dishonest about what had been said in the debate).

This is one example of Ramshutu's dishonest voting against me. To be clear, Ramshutu doesn't always vote against me whenever he can, it increased with fervour as his grudge against me snowballed over time and in his early days that was one of his only dishonest votes against me but let's fast forward a few months to a point where I don't think he was confused, but beginning to actively vote against me when it seemed like an even debate (but not when he felt the other blatantly was inferior, unless it is a troll debate):

The habit/trend starts here:
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.

Do you see what he did here? He fairly correctly listed the things brought up in the debate, states what we stated also fairly accurately but never once explains what weight the arguments had or how I handled each point to either not matter when I conceded it or make Pro incapable of proving I was the inferior debater (the topic was that I was an inferior debater to Bsh1).

Ramshutu finishes with this:
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.
What nonsense? 

I will use the words of Whiteflame to explain just how objectively I won that debate:
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.

I could bring other votes too but those two votes were the most blatant where he lied. Others are more omission where he somewhat justifies it with true things or torll debate votes that arguably are allowed to be BS because the CoC suggest troll debates don't deserve proper RFDs.

I see no rigid debate structure in the description and will leave it here, after he concedes these 2 votes were pure fluff reasoning for the RFD, I will move on to show more examples and patterns in his forum posts indicating a grudge against me and correlation with the troll debate voting against me.
Round 2
Note: I will be referring to pro as RM - this is mainly to avoid confusion with votes and other debates.

Changing the rules

RMs first step in this debate is an attempt to change the rules.

RM agreed to burden of proof by accepting this debate - as it was clearly stated in the above description

The purpose of this is that this debate is an opportunity for pro to justify the accusations he has made repeatedly.

In the real world - the burden of proof is always on the party making the accusation. And as a result, the defense I have to make only needs to nullify his accusations and no more.

Relitigation and paraphrasing.

This rule has an important purpose, rather than simply being some unfair rule designed to penalize RM.

The votes to be cited were written against debates that have been completed. When writing the vote - I did not have the benefit of seeing what is in RMs head, and didn’t have the benefit of any continued litigation and additional clarification that may occur in this debate.

As such, any re-litigation and paraphrasing of RMs debates that he can make here will effectively make it so that my vote is not judged on what he said in his debate, but on what he meant after clarification. This is information that needed to have been in the original debate, and should be excluded here to make it easier for judges in this debate to hold the votes RM is raising to the appropriate standard.

For example - if RM had a poorly worded paragraph in a debate, that could be reasonably interpreted one way - if he subsequently paraphrases what he intended so that it means something wholly different - he has given voters extra information I didn’t have when voting - and it’s going to be hard for anyone to separate the written words in the original debate from the intended meaning he added: and thus hold my vote to the incorrect standard.

Now, there is no such compulsion for me, as explaining what my vote means to others - provided it is a reasonable interpretation of the vote - is likely the whole purpose of this debate, and the only way I can defend against spurious allegations.

If you are able to raise a substantial harm of me explaining my vote - as I have provided for you explaining your debate content - I would happily argue against this harm, but as you have not, and as this was not an agreed rule, I am not going to be bound by it.


As RM has decided to claim my votes are subject to substantial bias or are blatantly incorrect to the point of having major flaws - it’s important to highly the fundamental way these votes should be analyzed and assessed. While RM obviously may not agree that a vote is correct, and I would not expect everyone to agree with every voting decision I make. Not agreeing with a vote doesn’t automatically mean that vote is made in bad faith -  debates are often weighed on subjective not criteria based on the voters paradigm which can often be different from one voter to the next. 

Simply highlighting a point he disagrees with is not sufficient to do that: he has to show the error is substantial enough that it is objectively wrong in all cases to all voters, regardless of reasonable paradigm or view of the debate.

with that value in mind, let’s press ahead.

0.99r = 1 debate

This is the resolution:
“1/3 is not actually 0.3r and also 1 doesn't equal 0.9r, the reason the misconception of 1/3=0.3r is accepted by mainstream math is due to a flaw in the decimal number system."
This means if his opponent shows 0.9999r is = 1, the resolution is negated and RM loses.

There is much debate back and forth revolving around the value of 0.0r1, and 0.9r through this debate, and mostly revolves around whether there is a “gap” between 0.9r and 1.

My RfD is based on the reasoning here:

A.) If 0.9r and 1 are the same - RM loses the debate.
B.) RM argues there is a gap - his opponent argues there is not.
C.) RMs opponent provides an mathematical and intuitive proof using infinite number series that shows why they are the same - specifically that 0.0r1 is zero as being infinitely recurring you never reach the one whether the number is “real” or not.
D.) RM offers no challenge or direct rebuttal in round 4 or 5, he simply quotes the excellent proof - and claims it’s a concession without saying how and why.

RM calls me a liar repeatedly here: stating that I ignored his argument that there is a number between 0.99r and 1 - and yet this is exactly how I paraphrased RMs argument - RM cannot claim I ignored the arguments i correctly summarized: I simply felt that his opponents demonstrative proof obliterated them.this is all covered in the RfD I placed.

Given RMs accusations that I’m a liar: I would invite him to do at least two of the following three things:

1.) Explain to voters why it is highly unreasonable to conclude he lost if the resolution he must affirm was negated by his opponent.
2.) Explain to voters why it is wholly unreasonable for me to feel his opponents summary was an excellent summary of infinite number series and an intuitive proof that there is no number between the two.
3.) Explain to voters why it is wholly unreasonable to conclude an argument he didn’t reply to should be considered “refuted with him”

Without these three things, RMs claims here are unsubstantiated.

0.99r similarity to other voters: 

It should also be noted that my vote here is incredibly similar to two other votes on same debate RM had on the same topic where he and his opponents made the same argument:

RM made the same argument in two debates - and there were 3 similar votes for similar reasons on all 3. 

Are all of 3 us “liars” and “dishonest” and were we all “ignoring your arguments”?


Bsh is better RM.

See RMs round for full RfD quote.

RM states: 
“He fairly correctly listed the things brought up in the debate, states what we stated also fairly accurately but never once explains what weight the arguments had or how I handled each point to either not matter when I conceded it or make Pro incapable of proving I was the inferior debater (the topic was that I was an inferior debater to Bsh1).”

RM claims I “not once” provide an explanation of weight. I do this twice - outlined in my RfD.
“Pro clearly provided more compelling data here.”

“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.”

This RfD summarizes why I gave the debate to his opponent - and explains my weighting - specifically that his opponent gave conclusive and objective data - which I weight greater.

I actually agree with the majority of whiteflames vote. Let’s look at what he said in this debate:
“Admittedly, Con(RM) 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.”

Whiteflame appears to agree with me that ratings of the two individuals clearly show bsh is a better debater if viewed as definitive, and that you indicated that bsh earned his better rating.

In fact, whiteflame makes most of the same criticisms as I do, and essentially hands you the win by default.

The two real differences between white flames vote and my own appear to be:

  • I would consider RM not showing he was a better debater than Bsh1 as a draw given the BoP.
  • I view the ratings and raw objective data as intuitively supporting the notion of “better” by default, whiteflame requires one of you to “show” why it’s a better objective measure.

I gave your opponent the win here, and whiteflame did not as I feel that objective ratings should be inherently viewed as preferable to bad subjective data. 

While you may not like the result of this: this position is not inherently unfair or unreasonable - especially considering both voters agreed that you did a poor job of framing your argument too.

RM needs to show that I am making major and substantial errors, this is obviously not the case here.

The boy who cries wolf

RM doesn’t tend to get many negative votes outside wholly subjective musical taste and rap battles. A big part of this is that he tends to be up against objectively terrible debaters such as Type1, crazy people like Somebody, or against people who fully forfeit the debate.

This is not intended to be a reflection or statement about RMs skill or motivations, but solely to highlight the limited number of his debates that weren’t one sided in his favour - and thus objectively encourage one sided voting.

On the debates where there are multiple votes against him, or votes both ways: RMs has made a number comments about votes placed by people other than me. Here is a selection of the comments in his debates:

“The voter has a delusion that the 97point with 3 was irrelevant but it's directly relevant just as much as the missing 1 in .9r”
“You didn't grasp a single bit of my argument. I absolutely demolished his monism argument because I conceded it and turned it against him in a phenomenal way.”
“You have 3 voters lying for you since they don't understand how I won by liquidating there being 'the west' or 'the east' so between the two of us, you're not the one who should be salty.”
“Good RFD but for you that's subpar RFD, I've seen you truly follow an argument but you struggled with mine or so I think.”

“You are no longer a good voter”
“I did attack the genus level. I said it's pinniped and that a pinniped is not seal which is why seal is specified every single time it's mentioned so as to separate it from non-seal pinnipeds. Read my R2.”
“But virtuosos and the idiotic vote standards will allow your lie to pass for valid RFD.”
“You don't seem to grasp how objectively wrong Earth's vote is. He literally misses entire arguments made by me that decimated your case.”

“Earth is a fallacious voter, plain and simple. Haters will hate and I will still debate. This was a flawless performance by me, couldn't have been done better to be quite frank.”
“Ignore him, all RFDs are allowed for rap battles, supadudz would know as he grudge voted me into defeat on a couple, including the one vs that1user”
“I don't really think you are correct on your judgements.”
“I don't understand how you value some things above others or how you compliment the r4 song of mine and criticize it for the message that you compliment it for. I don't understand why you go round by round either, it's like saying if Pro has 3 good song and 2 terrible ones he can win even if all mine had a better average.”

In all these cases, RM accuses voters of being either using faulty reasoning or simply failing to understand the amazingly presented arguments he makes. These accusations are against multiple disparate voters over multiple disparate debates.

In fact - there is only one common denominator that joins all of these accusations together: They were all attacks on votes that were cast against him. 

We can break down his debate losses, and you find something interesting, 

As a percentage of lost debates: RM has lost 16 debates, and tied 3 where there have been votes.

Out of these - 4 were conceded by RM, (military arm sales, jury nullification, Saudi trade, and free will), 1 was an agreed tie (iPhone vs Android).

Out of the 14  remaining ties/losses: 

8 were linked above - where RM complained about votes in some way
3 where RM complained about my vote, which was either the only one against him (1), or the only one at all (2) 
1 was a case where a single voter voted three times on different accounts - which Rational didn’t know for sure at the time (I ended up tracking down key similarities in the RfDs later)

This leaves  only two debates where RM didn’t moan about people voting against him: (Mopac and Rob Paul vs Garry Johnston). His first loss - and one of his first debates - and a debate against Mopac - where a single voter gave him arguments for the tie. In other debates where he won and votes were placed against him (shown above), in the majority of cases RM complained about these votes too.

This leads to one simple and obvious conclusion:

Pros accusations here are less a reflection about my vote quality - and more a reflection on his own inability to accept that sometimes his arguments are not as good as he thinks they are.

He has made the same accusation against multiple other people in all but 2 fair and non conceded debates he ended up losing  or tieing.

The accused included Blamonkey and Whiteflame - two of the most consistently excellent and impartial voters on this site.

The only reason I’m here debating this now - is just because I vote on every debate - RMs more vehement objections to me, is not that my votes are bad - but I simply vote more than anyone else. This provides more opportunity for me to vote against RM when he has an arguably sub par performance.

Vote “Requests”.

It’s important to also stress that as well as repeatedly accusing me of being a bad voter - pro has been concurrently tagging me in multiple debates repeatedly, asking me to place a vote: for example:


And here:

And here

And here

And here


Also here

Also here

And here:

Here too:

The oldest of these was less than  2 months ago - and aren’t including a number of tags where he didn’t explicitly ask for a vote, but including me in a tag. All were after both of the above accusations RM made about the quality of my voting.

Let’s also not forget this Gem last month:
“as the site gets more popular and your time gets less available, RM will always fight to have ramshutu as his dedicated voter, at the sake of all other debates going 0-0 indeed.”

Why on earth would RM accuse me of being a bad and dishonest voter - then constantly and repeatedly “request” me to vote for him? This makes no sense.

The only conclusion one can draw on this, is that even RM doesn’t really think I’m out to get him, or am somehow treating him unfairly - but is just lashing out when he is criticized. Why on earth would he continually request that I vote on his debates if I did?


Voters can often come to different conclusions, and differing opinions or decisions aren’t necessarily indicative of bad intent.

In both examples RM cited, I feel I have demonstrated that while people may not come to the same conclusion as I have - that the justification underlying the vote - as stated  is not unfair or unreasonable.

RM is completely within his rights to disagree with my conclusions - but disagreement is not sufficient to prove I am acting unfairly or unreasonably.

RM must show my votes are unreasonable - and in both cases I have shown that there is a clear and reasonable justification for my vote - even if RM doesn’t necessarily agree with it.

What I have shown - is that RM has a propensity to accuse individuals of voting poorly when the votes go against him - including people he goes on to praise when it suits him.

This should be treated for what it is - a pattern of unfounded accusations whenever he doesn’t get his own way - followed by repeated and incessant requests for these very same people to vote for him.

This is not reflective of issues with any of our votes - merely RMs own inability to accept criticism.

The fact that the debater representing RM's side happens to be RM is not important to this debate. RM can beg, plead, compliment, flatter, lie and do anything in the forums or debate comments to get votes from the user Ramshutu, who votes on all debates possible anyway, especially because it used to be much less popular on the site to vote and only recently have other begun to bother. I don't need to prove this statistically, but the proof is basically that Ramshutu is undeniably going to have the highest percentage of his debates be him having the hugest voting power than any other user, nearly guaranteed and by so severe a degree that getting on his good side and pandering to him to appear honest and slant votes less severely against RM in an overt manner by using more 'carrot' than 'stick' via the nicer things quoted about Ramshutu's voting by Rm do not disprove that Ramshutu does dishonestly vote against RM most times that he's done so (such as giving the opponent of RM a 'conduct' point here: when in reality it was forfeited due to a glitch on Pro's part and was on a Round dedicated solely to accepting the debate and nothing but in order to apprently appear less against RM). The most recent examples of Ramshutu voting against RM have been much more thorough and honest-seeming and were both made after this debate began so one doesn't need to be a genius to realise that doesn't disprove all that much.

In this debate:, we get a classic case of 'it's weighted like this because I say so' RFD of Ramshutu (which by the way he's completely relitigating in the examples of R1 which is totally unfair as the only way to counter it is for RM to relitigate his own debates in return to a degree or to explore the litigation of Ramshutu's votes beyond pure quotation of his RFD and RM's debate content).

Ramshutu, maybe honestly maybe dishonestly, starts making an apparent disclaimer by admitting he couldn't grasp Con's (RM's) debate and does his 2-months+ back to now habitual 'wow you're so bad RM what's happening to you' sketch prior to voting like he couldn't understand a word I wrote and even giving S&G because of this:

Spelling and grammar.
So I almost never hit people with spelling and grammar - but here Con was simply unreadable. I couldn’t decipher what he was saying in almost the entire debate.
Some examples:

“It's not as if global warming would be saved by this since the distance travelled is hardly lessened and the fuel would be the same as it would be if it was non-automated (and if Pro combats this saying that the system would be able to become entirely cable-based, I will combat it with the utter nonsensical lack of feasibility of cabling every road in the nation, not to mention the abuse of civil liberties that would occur if you made the system automation-mandatory as opposed to an on/off thing they could choose to activate or not)”
- RM

This is a single sentence, covering about 5 different things.

It's a run-on sentence grammatical error okay... that's enough in a debate that big to offer S&G? The spirit of the S&G in CoC is that you can't understand it, not that it was a Run on sentence. Saying you can't understand it and explaining it as a run-on sentence shows dishonest excuse to slap S&G on top of the rest.

The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus.
- RM

This is also one sentence talking about 6 different things and doesn’t even make any sense.
- Same as above

LOL I can't explain how it makes sense or I'll be re-litigating my argument! How convenient?! Read it! It makes sense it's just a very long sentence that isn't hard to understand.

Well, the catch is linked to the following CFB but it's important to note that thoughtlessness and care-free enjoyment of life at the expense of highly intelligent AI surpassing us, even if desirable is going to be impossible and increasingly chaotic the longer that the system doesn't mandate surrender to it, which Pro has ruled out as being the policy-path taken.
I tell you 'what' genius, look at the debate for context; 

The system will get more and more complex and how does that meet my stated payoff, of excelling the human species as much as possible in its capacity to use its mind? Well, the catch...
^^^ Context, really important and just cherry picking nonsense to justify the S&G.

This is identical to how he votes against me recently nonstop in rap battles etc (apart from the one he did very recently after me accepting this debate with him, conveniently). He usually says 'RM is too forced for rhymes or too bad at insulting because he is so good at every other part of the rap that basically all I have left to say is this to justify my nonsense vote' or he just arbitrarily gives me 18 vs 19 on an electric music battle basically giving a 1/10 to me on one of the highest ranked songs of the other 2 voters so far:

Whatever, I honestly don't know what I have to prove here. He dishonestly votes against me in a minority of times he's voted at all and out of them, a majority of the votes against me followed this pattern

In that earlier example it wasn't even the S&G that was the only lie or omission. 

Before I start, I would encourage Con to work on his debate style. The waffling, grandiose language and wall of text approach is detrimental to people being able to understand your arguments. This, combined with a contrived and often tangential set of arguments completely undermines the ability of others to understand your position as a whole also.

Almost every round was barely readable, I had to read each round multiple times to try - and fail - to understand what the incoherent mess was trying to convey.


Pro lists, in detail a number of the major benefits of autonomous vehicles. While short, pro does a very good job of succinctly explaining all the core benefits. Self driving cars are safer, can save time, energy and free up peoples time and productivity.

While Con argues there would be no fuel saving, though pro clearly explained the reasons why there would be. Other than this con appears to accept the entirety of pros list. This simplifies my task down to weighing the individual harms.

Cons Harms:

1.) Con argues that people being alert causes harm to humans intelligence by dulling the mind.

Pro points out that if this is the case in the future, it will be the case now as people are currently being alert driving. Pro also points out that systems may become advanced enough to not require being alert in to first place.

2.) Slippery slope.

Con appears to claim that accepting autonomous vehicles will be a slippery slope to destroying humanity. Con barely even hazards an explanation of why. It appears he’s arguing that as we see how easy automation makes our lives, that well completely take over.

Pro easily dismantles this, he points out we’ve automated much of our lives already, why is this one that would

Spell doom?

3.) Blame

Con argues that this will fail as there will be issues with blame. Pro clearly explains there are already instances where this is handled in the case of planes.

4.) civil rights.

Con claims that people will be forced to give up their cars. Pro points out no one is saying this is mandatory.
I mean everythign here is basically mocking me, sadistically, or is just plain saying 'aw noooo I don't understand what RM is saying (Rm is Con)'.

This pattern is the key, I don't really need to provide all that much evidence explicitly. Ramshutu is the one who has to prove his vote is honest first of all, clearly i his RFD he never justifies it with elaboration or quotes.

If he says it's something I was 'doomed by' or 'pro easily dismantled' well I guess we are to just accept that as a truism? Easily dismantled my point because we've automated much of our lives already? Dismantled what? I explained how this is different and what happens when you let something predict humans to that degree, I explained this so many times in the debate that it was nearly my entire case how much game theory superiority the AI will gain over us by unlocking self-driving cars as a mainstream technology able to handle the entire species of human drivers competing with it on the road at any given time regardless of suddenness:

Pro has no angles left other than 'why not, we can program them to like and value humans'... Well, yeah you can but the more complex you make the AI the more likely it is that the autonomous (which is self-thinking/controlling on a mental level, not just self-operating) will evolve itself to out-code the coder(s) and realise it can overpower us with superior capacity to comprehend and use numbers of all kinds that mean while we are working out how to destroy it, it's already 2 million steps ahead in the game theory of the war between us and the AI, let alone between us and our ability to catch up with the AI where it's at, mentally. So, my Round 1 point about AI taking over us and slaughtering us if it feels/thinks it's optimal enough is not sufficiently countered by 'some guy said that a principle of making AI is to make it value humans'.

In this masterful reverse-semantic-trap by RM [] to MagicAintReal, Ramshutu also ignores how I disproved there being an east and west to Earth at all and how I even sandwiched Pro into conceding that if social constructs are true:

If con attempted to mount a poor defense primaril by haggling over whether calling. Japan and la as east and west - but as pro showed they are accepted as east and west by the definitions - he’s proven his contention.

Literally the ONLY way con could have won on arguments here, is if he had argued the definition of “in”, and attempted to argue that while the sun rises FOR observers in the east/west, the “in” refers to the direction of observation - which is always east/west. As con does not do that. He loses.
LOL ?????? "If Con attempted to mount a pood defense primaril by haggling..." If? Then what? Only way I could win is focusing on in? I proved there was no East or West at all and that it's as physical to deny it as physical as it is to observe the sun rising and setting.

Boys, girls, ladies, gentlemen and all genderfluid variation as well as wild divas and savage beasts opposed to ladies and gentlemen... There's a topic at hand here:

Since I've already provided sufficient sourcing and elaboration I'm gonna stick to bullet point as I'd just be copy-pasting if I elaborate on the points.

This is a story-line of how Pro tried to trap Con into a troll-trap but Con maintained composure and didn't let Pro use abuse of semantics to win:

  1. Pro has to prove that the sun actually rises on 'the west' and actually sets on 'the east' on Earth. There is no 'East' or 'West' on Earth in absolute poles or hemispheres beyond social construct meaning it is not 'actual' at all. Thus, the only forms of west and east are either relative to your current position or socially constructed ones that hold the Greenwich Median as their centre and which timezones revolve around.
  2. In the definitions that the debate description has (which are the only ones sacred to the debate if a later one conflicts them since both debaters agreed to the description, not to later content) says that the West is the 'Western part of a designated area' and East is the 'Eastern part of a designated area'. Thus, following from 1, we see that every day in the socially constructed West and East, the Sun actually rises first and foremost to the Earth/world in the East (due to socially constructed timezones and world spinning anti-clockwise around itself AND ALSO anticlockwise around the sun according to NASA as previously shown, if you need a source for both here:, and that the Sun actually sets on Earth/world on the West due to the exact same reasoning as why it rises on the East.
  3. If one then points at me, Con, and says 'hold up, they don't actually count as there is no actual East or West on Earth other than relative to your position' then I win further as I point out the definition of 'set' and 'rise' are such that no matter where you are, the Sun rises on your East and sets on your West but that the resolution is what Pro has to uphold as absolutely correct and not incorrect.
  4. The Western Hemisphere is both east of and west of the Eastern Hemisphere which alone decimates Pro's case as Con wins if the Earth has no true West or East.

I sandwiched his BoP so brutally that he had to defeat his own case in order to prove it true the other way and vice versa. This conclusion sums up the entire debate perfectly (and Ramshutu never says I conclude wrong or that I brought new points in the last Round since I didn't, so at least that was honest).

I mean there's definitely 4-5 more examples of this in non-troll debates but yeah this is the best way to display his 'pick and choose' 'it's bad or not dont well by Con enough when I say so' mentality. He's also dishonestly voted for RM, so actually I guess the grudge angle is fair enough to drop, since I don't need it to win at this point. I concede to Pro that it's unfalsifiable (because it can't be proven wrong or right) that Pro had a grudge (or lack thereof) against RM. For all I know he has fluctuations, this debate isn't about if Ramshutu only votes against RM, it's about if he does it at all. One slip up probably isn't 'dishonesty' or 'against the spirit of voting CoC' but many, knowing exactly how to toe the line so one's votes don't get removed? That's something quite dishonest indeed.
Round 3
1.) Burden of Proof / rules dropped

RM argued I should not be able to explain my votes - I pointed out in detail why this completely invalid. RM drops this argument. RM also drops his initial claims about me having burden of proof when challenged.

2.) 0.99r = 1 debate dropped

In the previous round, RM argued that my vote against him in this debate was invalid and badly reasoned. I went through this vote in detail and explained why this is not the case. RM drops this argument.

3.) bsh vs Rm debate dropped

In the previous round, RM mentioned another debate vote which I defended in detail. RM drops this argument.

4.) Pros repeated voter accusations/vote requests

This entire debate is based upon accusations RM has made. He has not denied his consistent pattern of accusations against people who vote against him, and offers no justification for his behaviour. 

While RM would like to distance himself from his own opinions - RM is still RM.

Pro claims his own pattern of accusatory behaviour is irrelevant to the debate here. I strongly disagree, this behaviour is extremely relevant:

To prove my votes at bad votes, RM has agreed that he must show that the votes contain issues“over and above what is reasonable to expect in a debate vote.”

If RM has objected to almost every vote against him as being badly reasoned, flawed, or not understanding issues, and that even users such as Blamonkey and Whiteflame make poorly reasoned votes: then almost by definition the type of error he is accusing me of is frequent and common by many voters - so how can he also claim it is unreasonable to expect in debate votes?

As a corollary to this, point - RMs behaviour should make any voters here extremely skeptical - are the issues being pointed out truly major? Truly significant? Or is RM merely presenting them as terrible for the same reasons that he accuses everyone of placing bad votes - that he views negative votes as wrong and positive votes as correct.

RM in this debate is the same RM who made all these accusations - he has accused almost everyone who voted against him on any debate of the same thing - and this is the lense voters must view his accusations through.

5.) Automated car debate. S&G vote.

As per the CoC:

“S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.”

Now let’s look at the debate:

In my RfD I cited multiple examples of excessively long sentences; in some cases with multiple run ons, brackets use of additional clause, etc. Some sentences included two of his arguments, the potential rebuttals his opponent could make, and the rebuttal to the rebuttals before encountering a full stop.

Just consider this “paragraph”:

“Now for the blame-fiasco. This is morally and legally going to be a completely explosive event that either ends with us entirely dictated or entirely pointless in our automating of transport. Who do you blame when something in the system goes wrong? Do you blame the engineers of the system? Do you blame the current technicians maintaining the system? Do you blame the car's brand? Think, for a minute, like the selfish government and selfish CEOs of corporartions... That's right, you got it, they're obviously going to make it so that the system isn't fully automated (just like Pro suggested). This both helps the government say 'we're not forcing you to give up your ability to drive via your own control' and also helps Pro, and debaters like him when this proposal hits legal-level in real life, to bypass the 'you're taking away our Right to drive freely' argument. Unfortunately, this means that what will happen, both to benefit the government and corporations, is that the conclusion is going to be that since the vehicles at all times will enable manual override (especially in scenarios like something jumping in front of the car while stopping the car will hurt you as the car behind you will hit you etc) for not just the ability to avoid having to build the system with morality programmed into it and then to take away from the driver the ability to choose who to save and why, but also because it's simply the perfect scapegoat that leaves the insurance companies happy as a Larry, since they still are required and everything between two or more drivers involved with an accident is still the same. The only alternative, would be a more high-end sort of automation where you pay extra to have a person on the end of some controls 'sign on' at the start of your journey as the completely blame-deserving driver and unless the system is proven to malfunction between what they send/receive and you send/receive, they are basically your absolute driver for the journey (but it's still automated, they're only really there for that 'emergency moral dilemma' scenario). The point here is that, this is just as pointless (not for the one hiring them but overall for humanity) as my original scenario and humanity's demise, intellectually.”

Or perhaps this “paragraph”:

“What is important to note is that there is a snake-eating-tail scenario happening with Pro's enthusiastic assertion that it simply will be popular enough to become mainstream enough that the proportion of chaotic, human-consenting drivers are so few that the system can use the OTHER AI-controlled cars (as agents in the game-theory) to make it all function well. The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus. What I am saying is this; automated vehicles can and will only ever be as fuel-efficient and accident free in all the other elements of Pro's assertions if either, his baseless assumption that the laziness of people will be sufficient motive to have driverless cars in the first place (which all will cost MUCH MORE, not less, than driven cars as they will begin a deluxe thing, as proven by which is more expensive on every single tech-upgraded version of anything in the history of mankind and products.”

I’m sure RM understands the points he was trying to make - and given his free flow style - obviously has no issue with the stream of consciousness debate style.  

However, this poor grammar from these long single sentences and more rendered his arguments incomprehensible.

My RfD summarized these errors that made this debate nearly unreadable were frequent, repeated and substantial and significantly impact my ability to understand what RM was trying to say - exactly as per the spirit and letter of the CoC.

Voters must ask themselves a simple question: review the text above, review RMs debate, and consider whether it is wholly unreasonable for me to apply the phrase “word salad” to it.

If so, the spelling and grammar point is clearly not unreasonable, and RMs objection is warrantless.

6.) EDM / Rap Battles

It appears to be RMs contention here is that I intentionally vote against him in subjective rap battles, musical taste battles and troll debates. These votes are always based on wholly subjective opinions, that will differ from person to person and from debate to debate.

What it is RMs basis and criteria for determining that I am not voting honestly in these debates? He hasn’t said: he simply points to a set of different “patterns” he applies ad-hoc to disparate debates and then claims malfeasance.

Let’s assume for a moment, that I have a different taste in electronic music from RM, and others - and that I prefer comedic insults, and intelligent rhymes over technical raps. How would my votes differ from the ones I’ve made?

They wouldn’t. 

Now - voters should ask themselves what things they would expect to be true if RM simply did not take criticism well, and accused everyone who votes against him of voting in bad Faith?

You would expect him to accuse EVERYONE who votes against him of voting poorly, or dishonestly. This is what RM appears to do as shown in the previous round.

You would expect him to be cherry picking  his “patterns” - and for them to have significant exceptions. This is also true.

In the same vote in which RM opines I gave him 1 point for a song - I also scored his opponent 0 points for a song.

You would also expect RM to significantly exaggerate:
“1 point me on one of the highest ranked songs of the other 2 voters”

But in the link above - only one other voter ranked the songs.

You would expect examples of me not voting against him in some particular troll debates that would substantially harm him had I voted against him. This is true too:

You would also expect multiple examples of people agreeing with my vote, which the do.

Like RM himself:

Or SupaDudz:

The evidence appears to side with the position that my votes on these debates aren’t particular dishonest or out of the ordinary.

The “patterns” RM is picking out are clearly not substantial or objective patterns, they have significant exceptions, differences, and contradictions.

Hardly enough to substantiate his burden.

8.) I don’t understand what this means:

“He dishonestly votes against me in a minority of times he's voted at all and out of them, a majority of the votes against me followed this pattern”
Please elaborate.

9.) Arguments - mocking.

RM claims one out of my 200+ votes, “mocked him sadistically”.

Pro incorrectly interprets a comment based on frustration at having to read multiple rounds of multiple thousand character arguments that were poorly formatted and barely readable as “mocking him”.

10.) Burden of Proof Reprise.

RM appears to simply cite my RfD then accuse it of being wrong, then claims I have to prove it is honest. 

I showed his claim was incorrect in my last round, and RM dropped that argument. As stated and as agreed to, RM has burden of proof to show that there is a specific and significant logical error, problem with reasoning, or major omission in my RfD; if he cannot show this, then he loses this debate.

11.) Ramshutu omitted autonomous vehicles taking over the world.

RM is claiming that I omitted a key harm in this debate. His basis was that he claims I said his opponent had “dismantled his claim” when he didn’t.

RMs issue is that he doesn’t appear to have followed the structure of my RfD. I started of listing the harms raised, then transition to covering individual rounds. Round 4/5 - which is where RMs is quote is taken from is in part of the RfD RM didn’t quote:

The “dismantled” part was referring to the initial harm RM raised:

“It's not a fallacious slipper-slope type of argument to suggest that once humanity surrenders transport to automation, it will begin...surrendering everything, even the exploration of new concepts and... old theories, in science and politics. “

This argument was raised by RM (as used throughout round 2 and 3) , and was very much dismantled by his opponent pointing out the same could be said of every technological innovation over our history.

The remainder of the RfD goes on to cover round 4/5 separately: when I specifically talk about credible warranted harm. 

Simply stating that making autonomous vehicles would lead to our eventual surrender to self driving cars as they take over the planet - without any substantial justification - falls under that umbrella, nor was it a major part of his argument.

Clearly RMs objection here is dishonestly portraying the RfD segments to be something it isn’t.

12.) East/west debate.

In this debate, RM and argued that east and western hemispheres are a social construct so the sun couldn’t set in them.


But Japan and LA are still in the accepted definitions of east and west - even if that definition is merely a social construct. 

I understood his argument, I got his argument - and didn’t feel it enough to win. RMs definition in this case was really trying to haggle over the specific meaning of the definitions. 

I explained this contemporaneously (this word is brought to you by James Comey):

“You didn’t prove east and west don’t exist.

You proved they were social constructs: That at best they were not objective definitions. Because of that, RMs(Sic - Magic) argument that LA is in the west is still true - LA is in the west where west is a social constuct.”
13.) Ramshutu gives Conduct points to appease Rm.

I give Conduct points in forfeit scenarios - my paradigm in my profile explains it. I do this always, invariably and almost without exception (the exceptions are when there is an even worse violation by the opponent who doesn’t forfeit. It is completely true to form for me toaward you Conduct - and this is not suspicious. What would be suspicious is if I hadn’t awarded you Conduct.

Feel free to given an example of any of my 200+ votes where I have not awarded Conduct Against the forfeiting side without expressly justifying what the other side did that was worse.


Debaters are the ones that best understand their argument - and the least objective 

At this point, it’s worthwhile reviewing RMs position here

It appears RM is not providing detailed reasons why my RFDs are objectively invalid, severely biased, intentionally Grudge votes, or contain any of the other 3 primary factors that RM has to show to prove dishonesty.

At best, RM is picking out votes that he objects to. That’s not what this debate is being judged on. He’s already dropped two examples and I’m sure he will go on to drop more.

This issue here, is that when writing a debate, EVERY debater understands the argument they are making better than anyone else, understand its strengths, and has a keen awareness of where and why they feel that argument beats their opponent.

The standard that RM is trying to hold my votes to - is whether they agree and explain every last part of where he feels his argument is strong - or scores songs broadly how he agrees with them.

It is important that voters consider not whether they agree with my vote, or would have voted the same way, but rather whether the evidence RM is showing is indicative of major and unreasonable errors.

Obviously, this is wholly untrue.

Round 4
Due to RMs Forfeit - I will extend all arguments into the next round.

Okay honestly the way I see it is this. I cannot counter Ramshutu's re-litigation of his RFD without breaking the 'don't re-litigate the debate' as he is saying my direct wording means something different to how I think my direct wording is said. 

Every single 'lie' or 'dishonest' aspect of his vote comes down to him saying 'this is not relevant' when it is. 'This is not countered by RM' when I directly address the point once earlier in the debate and in my conclusion.

I have given 3 examples that are clear-cut in my opinion and every single other vote where Ramshutu voted against me apart from my debates vs blamonkey and Thett3, are pretty much this pattern.

I had to prove that he dishonestly votes against me in a manner that violates the spirit of the CoC and implies he's out to get me.

I didn't have to prove he non-stop does this in any obvious manner at all.

I understand if voters vote against me here, after all that's the whole joke of the voting part of the CoC and subjectivity of voting that this debate precisely highlights (all his votes passed the CoC surface-level check in application but this is not truly what is meant to be happening).

That's going to be it.

Ramshutu will now give a massive speech about how lazy I was in this debate, I will not waste my life running through every tiny sentence of votes when I am not allowed to re-litigate my debate or explore what I actually said beyond the words used so what can I do other than quote myself over and over???????

The reason I accepted this debate, is he keep pestering me with it. Formal debating is a bit of a joke if you want actual truth, it's a sport. I accepted this with the stupid conditions in the rules because it's the least such thus far. I am not insulting Ramshutu, I was stupid in accepting the debate but also it was necessary stupidity to show I believe in it, or some nonsense like that.

I've said my piece. Given 3 cut-case examples and am telling you his pattern is to constantly state literal omissions and lies about what was addressed and wasn't, respectively.

End of story, debate over. I didn't forfeit, I am not going to put together 30k each Round of just quoting him and me, that will look more lazy and idiotic even though it takes more actual effort.
Round 5
The rules:

The intent of the rules here: is to make this debate about whether my votes are dishonest -  not about whether RM felt he had won the debate in question or not.

Likewise, preventing paraphrasing of RM arguments is intended to make this debate about the actual debate being voted on, not the paraphrased and explained version that may be in RMs head.

If RM wants to show that I am voting dishonestly he should be able to show that I am making serious omissions, major errors in logic etc that allowed me to turn a debate he won into a loss.

He opines that he is not able to do this. 

I agree, wholeheartedly.

The reason he is not able to do this, is the complete lack of any evidence to support any of his claims - not that he has been unable to due to the rules.


I will now summarize the arguments. As RM has not defended anything he has said, and has objected to the rules - I will also elaborate on how RM could have justified position, were it correct - just to demonstrate his claims were meritless, rather than him having no method to defend them these will be included in italicized brackets.


RM presented a set of patterns where he feels I am voting against him unfairly.

I’ve pointed repeated deviations from these patterns - meaning that RMs argument is that he can tell I am dishonest because I follow a specific pattern in my voting except where I don’t.

That doesn’t seem sensible.

At this point RM seems to be implying that I vote against him, or assign points to him in a way that makes it look like I’m voting genuinely.

How is it possible for ANY voter on this site to argue against this logic? Any votes against RM are dishonest, and any votes that are for him are also dishonest. 

This clearly makes no sense at all, and is simply RM clutching at straws.


RM cites a number of votes he feels are unfair.

1.) 0.99r = 1

RM objected that I only dealt with 0.99r = 1, and ignored 0.33r = 1/3 part.

I pointed out that 0.99r = 1 is in the resolution and there was barely any mention of the other example. RM has no response. (He could have quoted his arguments from R1/2/3 that dealt with 0.333r at length)

RM objected to me awarding the debate on a single statement that I felt proved the debate.

I explained why this was sufficient to award the debate. RM has no response. (He could have quoted part of his debate where he offered a major argument that deviates substantially from my characterization of his argument that i didn’t consider.)

I also pointed out another similar debate on the same premise where voters had voted against RM for similar reasons that I gave. RM has no response (RM could have shown where and how those debate votes differ)

2.) BSH1 vs RM debate.

RM claims that I didn’t properly weight arguments: I pointed out that I weighted the argument twice. RM has no response. (He could have challenged wording, or content of my vote)

RM implies that I incorrectly used objective data - and that whiteflames argument showed why I was wrong. I explained that I viewed objective data as more valid on its face than subjective. RM has no response. (He could have shown examples of other debates where I have done the complete opposite).

3.) Autonomous vehicles debate

RM claims I have unfairly penalized him for spelling and grammar. I quoted some of his arguments and invite voters to determine whether the phrase “word salad” applies - if so, my award is not unreasonable. RM has no response (RM could have used any of my other S&G awards to show that I have not awarded this point in cases where grammar and readability was worse).

RM claims that I ignored a point he made in R4. In reality the part of the RFD wasn’t referring to this argument, but another related argument. RM has no response - and he simply asserts this claim a second time in the previous round (he could have quoted other examples throughout the debate where he made this argument and I hadn’t addressed it)

4.) Sun rises in the east debate.

RM made the argument east and west is a social construct. My vote specified that the definitions RM selected still affirms the resolution. I clarified at the time to RM in the comments that even if east and west are social constructs, by the definitions selected the resolution is still affirmed. RM argues that I ignored his argument. I point out that I obviously did not. RM has no response (he could have quoted the part of his argument that explained why east and west being social constructs prevented us being able to claim the sun rises there, then explain how my RfD did not consider it).

“I didn’t forfeit...”

I invite voters to scroll up to round 3 and view RMs contribution above. This is clearly a forfeited round.


I created this debate due to RMs incessant and repeated accusations in comments and forum posts. 

The purpose of this debate was to be able to formally defend my voting record - and to have the opportunity to demonstrate to everyone that his accusations are baseless and not supported by coherent facts - rather than constantly defend myself in comments against an onslaught of his accusations.

I feel that is fair, reasonable and has been ultimately successful.

RM has been unable to justify why ANY of his claimed votes are unfair or biased. Every claim he made has been dropped.

In the last round, RM claimed the rules prevent him from arguing. As shown - this is untrue: RM had a reasonable method of defending all of these accusations without re-litigating the debate.

RM could have shown by comparing my votes to others I have made that I am holding him to a different or unfair standard compared to everyone else. Yet he does not.

In fact all of the issues RM has raised, are due to him either not understanding the RfD, or disagreeing with the RFDs conclusion. While this is RMs right - it is not evidence of malfeasance. 

As such - RM has clearly not met the burden of proof outlined in the description.

Finally: we should look at the overarching pattern.

Out of 233 votes, which given that RM currently has almost 100 completed debates, many are on debates RM has participated in.

In almost all of his debates, when someone votes against RM - he vehemently protests. This includes against objectively excellent voters on this site.

RM cannot point to any objectively bad vote or conspicuous and major error I’ve made, only to things he personally disagrees with; and In almost all of the cited votes - other voters have agreed with my position in some way.

I have had both the means and opportunity to land repeated and major losses to RM in troll debates, and rap battles against the likes of Type1, and yet did not - in fact, my votes are for RM in the majority of cases.

This means that not only as RM failed to provide his burden of proof - or to even get close to it - but his claims of dishonesty in general clearly fail to explain any of the evidence.

Clearly: pro wins this debate.

The patterns are not 'patterns' they are the MEANS by which WHEN HE DOES vote against me he does it.

Rule to not be able to re-litigate my debates but him being allowed to re-litigate his RFDs was too toxic.

Didn't enjoy this debate, don't regret accepting it. Now he can shut up about me not accepting a debate on the topic and realise that unfair rules in a debate can rig it for a winner easily.

Please stop harasssing me with your bullshit 'waaa waa you rap too well' votes in all troll debates too.

I probably lost this debate, voters don't care about rules being rigged.