And some say the religion forum is a nuthouse. What is going on with you guys
Its nutso in here...
Don't really need to say more
Is that short for ramshutu?
some people thought they could pick on me and get me off of the website by taunting and intimidation.
Dr. Franklin is banned for 3 days and the rest, in general, have gone quiet. I think that speaks for itself.
I think you could make a good argument for you being the greatest debater on this website. I just went through all of your 54 debate losses only 26 of those are legit losses(you didn't F). I did count Concessions though, so it's probably even lower than 26, also the VAST MAJAORITY of those losses are rap battles, you lost like 6 debates in a row in rap battles to Wrick it Ralph I think.
Yes, ramshutu especially capitalised on any/all opportunities to ruin my winrate as time went by and he grew a grudge against me. I've spent months studying and adapting. Hooefully i win my next 2 debates (against Exile and billbatard) where i use alll my learnings and adaptation to make almost any voter incapable of justifying a vote against me by me covering all bases. It will be very difficult but I think I've finally cracked the pacing, side-picking etc.
Well I wish you the best, I'll try to vote if I can.
In the interest of fair representation: RM seems unable to accept criticism or negative feedback: so when he's had a string of genuinely terrible debates, which he loses, he tends to shoot the messenger - which as I tended to vote on most debates was mostly me. We had a debate about it voting, in which he raised a few objections that were dismantled, then conceded the debate. RM does like to throw out these sort of unfounded, baseless accusations all the time.
Saying that, if you want to see a good debater, and good strategy, take a look at any of Blamonkeys debates, and Death23 (that guy is a street fighting debater); while I like Sempafortis and think he’s very good, I find that his style isn’t quite as accessible. I don’t think RM at his best would be able to defeat those guys at their worst.
So to answer the original question: RM made a large, long winded leaving post proclaiming that he was leaving and never coming back; almost everyone took RM at his word, and wished him the best. RM then comes back 2 weeks later, and attempts to pretend nothing happened, and apparently that he only took a break. Of course, as RM tends to be overly serious; the absurdity of how definitive his leaving post was, and his replies that he fixed all his personal issues in 2 weeks, was mocked by pretty much everyone.
RM then accused everyone of bullying him currently and in the past; (I pointed out that I almost exclusively attack the content and absurdity of the things he says and does, and very rarely more) - RM obviously is not bullied as much as being the recipient of criticism and satire about the validity of the things he said and does.
While I was pointing out that RM makes a number of false claims and accusations that he isn’t able to support with facts; and entered into a discussion about one particular example: a few users started attacking him personally, and it started getting a bit out of hand.
Completely understand, I noticed in the very few debates where RM goes all in and loses (excluding rap battles), it's almost always when he stepped up in competition against guys like you or Oro. But, RM in an all time sense is extremely high up there.
Look at My debate over Fedor Emiliananko with him. He demolished my points in one round but FFed and lost, and even though It was my first debate and I have improved a ton, it's fair to note that these make up a large amount of his loses and aren't indicative of his real debating skills. Excluding his FF, C, and rap battle debates he's only lost a handful of times .
I agree that you haven't voted unfairly on any of his debates(at least the ones I've seen), and RM thinks you've got something against him.
Note:I was talking about RM as a debater, not a personality(although he isn't egregiously bad on either fronts). I also wouldn't say he's the best debater, just that you could argue he is, I've ought full respect for RM though, he's game to debate anything at anytime.
Yes it did get out of hand.
I want to point out that both you and I are hypocrites, as we have both trolled others. It is simply a matter of degree. And I don't know if that really matters.
Ramshutu saying I can't beat them at the worst, when at my best, is one of many examples of the extent of biased bullshit that he portrays as objective truth. In time he will eat those words, but then that is the very beauty of doing it (proving people like him wrong).
The issue with the Fedor debate, and RMs approach can really be highlighted here:
RM tried a near identical approach in this one, and got utterly obliterated by Oromagis opening round.
It’s actually an approach RM often takes: arguing his opinion, and trying to present his opinion where these sorts of debates are won and lost in facts. It’s a major weakness and has contributed to most (but not all) of his non forfeited debate losses.
In this debate with RM, you also took somewhat of an opinion based approach; which is why you may have felt RM did better; but with a little more experience and observations of other debaters, it becomes easier to pick out and deal with.
In the debate he had with me about Voting; he did a similar things, he posted votes and made claims about how they didn’t cover x or y: or were unfair to penalize by grammar (opinion), I countered with specific facts : by quoting the part of the votes that covered x as y, etc. The same goes for our recent Transgender debate, I am sure he was going to argue from this perspective of opinion: but then gave up and conceded when the facts were laid out logically.
So I would tend to disagree with you on your assessment of your debate in that regard.
Oh absolutely, I troll RM all the time; mainly in minor and passive aggressive ways: like my avatars, when RM is particularly over the top, I do like to poke fun and use humour to draw attention at the overly dramatic tone, or overly hyperbolic statements. Like accusing me of mocking him sadistically.
When it’s aimed at the content of what he says, and targeting how he behaves in general, this is broad criticism of his content and attitude: its over the top when it’s specifically personal, or attacking him specifically - which is where Dr.F seemed to drive it.
I also personally don’t want to see RM leave: I am working on trademarking my username, charging people 1c per use of my name. If he stays I could make millions.
If we charged people for use of each our respective usernames, I'd earn a lot more than you ever would, so bit a bad angle to come at me with there, Shutu shot himself in the foot.
Ramshutu seems to think that facts can be used in a debate about 'who is better' without filtering it through a biased lens. He also thinks he can disregard dishonest votes because he says his intent was honest and that the dishonesty is irrelevant. Sad thing is, both are proven true by voters. This helped me over time realise how to capitalise on sheepish habits and blind spots in voters' logic that now I am learning to use to my advantage, will raise in rating and then reveal later on how exactly I do it and what the fatal flaws are in most humans is in deciding which side of a debate is correct.
Of course, facts have to be used in a debate that is comparing which of two things is better, if you don’t use facts your argument is completely baseless. The criteria which you use the facts to support, can obviously be subjective - which is why it’s also up to debaters to justify why their criteria should be used over the other. But even that has some objective elements.
You can argue rate of climb is better than straight line speed for say a spitfire vs me109 based on how those planes were used; but it would be ridiculous to use whether the name of one was better than the other. This is just basic principles of debate.
Secondly, I would also suggest that you expend your effort on winning debates, and making convincing arguments, rather than going to great length trying to convince everyone how great tactical and strategic approach will be. The last two times you claimed you had found a new perfect strategy it was followed by tumbling in the rankings.
Finally; if you have any issues with any of my votes: feel free to either challenge me to a debate on it, or to start a specific thread (or in the comments of the debate) - I would be happy to explain the vote in much more detail. Most of the accusations thus far are fairly vague accusations.
I wonder if it has anything to do with me putting LSD and PCP in the water.And some say the religion forum is a nuthouse. What is going on with you guys
Nah. Probably no correlation.
but it would be ridiculous to use whether the name of one was better than the other. This is just basic principles of debate.
Why? What's wrong with using the name? it's as valid an element of comparison as that. 'better' had no context to it at all.
It’s not a valid element of comparison.Why? What's wrong with using the name? it's as valid an element of comparison as that. 'better' had no context to it at all.
Valid elements of comparison would be, in this case, limited to the specific purpose of the things your comparing: so you’d judge aircraft by the aircraft things: not that spitfire would be make a better male stripper name.
Again, while comparing two things may have many orthogonal properties - like cards in top trumps, and it’s up to debaters to make their case for property selection; not simply to pick some random nonsensical property.
I mean, you could; but it wouldn’t be very smart. If you don’t grasp that, it may go some way to explaining why you feel you should have won more debates than you have.
hmm that’s probably why I can Taste dubstep right now
Nope, unless the debater can prove it, you must allow all means of comparison, that's how tabula rasa works.
Tabula Rasa doesn’t mean you don’t need to warrant your arguments.
So sure, if you could warrant why that is a valid comparison - I’d not reject it out of hand, but you have to provide that warrant. It’s not a Tab Judges Job to magically make a bad argument good
you dont even know what you're talking about. TR is about the voter, not the debater.