Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 debate3.) 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.
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.
“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."
“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).”
“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.”
“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.”
- 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.
“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.”
“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.”
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)”- RMThis is a single sentence, covering about 5 different things.
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.- RMThis is also one sentence talking about 6 different things and doesn’t even make any sense.
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.What?
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...
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.Arguments: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 wouldSpell doom?3.) BlameCon 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.
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'.
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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: https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/anticlok.htm, https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ1.htm#q26) 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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?
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:
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”
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.”
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.