Who is the BesT debater in this cite.

Author: Username1

Posts

Total: 122
#61
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@thett3
@Wylted
@whiteflame
@oromagi
I mean... Mikal was #1 even after leaving the site for 5 straight years. He also destroyed bluesteel on gun rights. So I would argue he was the best debater on the site by far.

But on this site, (barring myself as a vote), I think Oromagi deserves his number 1 spot on the leaderboards. He is a great debater.

Also, I am pretty sure Wylted on here is the same Wylted on DDO. Unless he specifically stated otherwise. And Wylted had a higher ranking on DDO than whiteflame.

Oromagi, on here, reminds me a lot of Mikal, tbh. Their debating styles are very similar, which makes me wonder if he is Mikal just trolling us on liberal views to see if he can defend a position he doesn't actually believe.

But, honestly, this is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, there were leaderboards on DDO and are on here and, yes, there was a debate voting system on there and is on here here, but the systems were differently weighted, iirc, and they also had a different calculation for the elo ranking.

So idk if it is a direct comparison anyways.

Just looking stylistically and based on the percentage of debates won and lost, I would argue oromagi and mikal (IF they are different people) are the two best debaters.

And, MAAAAANNN would I love to see a debate between the two of them. Once again assuming they are different people. 

#62
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
Btw, when I say "good debater," here is my methodology:

Destroying the other person's argument using any method that works.

Oromagi, you have great potential to be better than Mikal. But, imho, your biggest problem is you really LOVE to appeal to authority. This makes your arguments really weak because, many times, your authority is simply just dead wrong or does not actually prove their statements with cited evidence. WaPo and any other news outlet, 99% of the time, is not the best source to use for a debate on anything.

But, when you are on the defensive, your way of eviscerating other peoples' arguments is stellar. You get people to agree to your definitions, make them become a straw man of their own argument, and then destroy the position you made them take. That is amazing skill. Mad respect.

But, unfortunately, the biggest flaw in that is that the person can simply pick away at your attempts to guide the argument into your straw man, and I think that is where you fall apart.

Mikal used to do the same thing you did, but his source material was, like, Congressional Research Service-level sourcing. He would pull reputable studies out of the depths of the internet to supplement his side and use the same method you did. Studies few people even knew existed.

Moreover, he would (generally) use pure logic rather than rely on logical fallacies to destroy the other person's arguments. He would start with a premise that is a kink in the other person's argument and then turn that premise into this gigantic bulldozer that completely destroys the fortified walls in the other person's argument. Kind of like with Socrates asks a single question in Plato's Republic that causes a chain reaction of problems in the other person's argument.

Like, I will admit I am an experienced persuader who has also been in my fair share of debates, (in real life. Not on DDO or DART), but the way you basically make people pick up the noose to hang themselves with when you debate them is just uncanny. And that is what makes you a great debater. 

So that is why my nominations stand at Mikal and Oromagi, and it is also why I theorize you guys are the same person lol. But it appears you said you were on DDO as well so maybe not lol.
#63
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
Oromagi structures his debates like some top secret government AI project released onto debating. He even uses capitalisation that way.
#64
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Novice_II
I forgot about this thread, but since it was updated today, can someone please explain to me how RationalMadman is a good debater, talk less of the best one? 

  • Because he understands the nature of this site better than any other.  The leaderboard rewards quantity over quality and as long as RM keeps winning 2/3rds of his debates (which might be done easily if he simply refused to forfeit so often), he must eventually return to the top slot with an unassailable position on the leaderboard.

#65
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@Public-Choice
I mean... Mikal was #1 even after leaving the site for 5 straight years. He also destroyed bluesteel on gun rights. So I would argue he was the best debater on the site by far.
I mean, Bluesteel won that debate -- the majority of votes went to him. I don’t even think it was that close; most good judges on the website, like Thett, Whiteflame (in a TRW, later), and Raisor, voted for Bluesteel. 

Mikal was pretty good, but he benefited from doing a lot of debates, often against lower-rated opponents, quickly, allowing his rating to increase sharply. I don’t really think Elo rating on DDO was an excellent measure of how good people were. My Elo put my #7 on the site, above Whiteflame, Raisor, and Thett, even when I was ~14 years old -- when I was 14, I wasn’t even close to the three of them in strength. 
#66
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Oromagi structures his debates like some top secret government AI project released onto debating. He even uses capitalisation that way.

  • I guess that's what logic must look like to the uninitiated.  
    • I use all CAPS in debates to remind VOTERS that particular word was defined for this debate, semantically delimited.
    • Debate format, structure follows Barney's published style guide.  Since he is by far the most prolific voter on this site, it seems only logical to customize my arguments to appeal to that voter.

#67
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
May i have the opportunity to debate you, sir?
#68
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh
Sure, tho I think reincarnation is easily falsified.
#69
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
oh? fascinating. I didnt think you would be ok debating philosophy with me. Lets open up the debate then. Do you want me to open it or would you prefer yourself to do it?
#70
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm open to suggestions.  History, conspiracy theories, current events politics, etc. are my types of topics generally.
#71
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
I love that oromagi. You said you think reincarnation is easily falsifiable (obviously noticing I've been interested in debating the topic lately) but when i ask for it you switched up xD
-
If reincarnation is so falsifiable i think you have an imperative to prove it to people such as myself who are may be ignorant to the facts that you've experienced. I think it would be a shame for me to walk around the rest of my life living a lie. Its better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie. Do you want to do the reincarnation debate?
#72
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh
More like I was trying to warn you off claims of magic in the realms of reason.  You are welcome to submit a debate.  If I don't like the terms or the thesis I will reject it.  If you'd prefer to discuss topic, format in IM, we can do that to.
#73
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
There's a very big difference between saying something is falsifiable and arguing we shouldn't believe something without evidence. Although I'm sure you will soon find there is some evidence to reincarnation.
#74
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
Bluesteel won that debate

Really? Do you happen to have the archive link for it? I remember Mikal winning it.

Also, lmao on Oromagi being a secret government AI.
#75
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
I've sent the challenge!
#76
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Public-Choice
Just use the waybackmachine, he did win it. Although bluesteel strikes me as someone who was likely male who enjoyed pretending to be a woman on the internet to fulfill some sort of fetish of his. 
#77
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
What was wrong with it? everything which was wrong with it i will edit. I will even take away most of your burden of proof if need be. 
#78
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm not going to argue that reincarnation is not unfalsifiable- triple negative.

You must prove that there is such a thing as a human soul and that when a human dies, that soul is provably transferred to another animal.

If you're not arguing that then you're not really arguing for the existence of reincarnation.
#79
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Switch soul to consciousness and i will carry the full burden of proving there is no sufficient reason to believe consciousness dies at death and that reincarnation is possible. Will that be good enough?
#80
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh

Switch soul to consciousness and i will carry the full burden of proving there is no sufficient reason to believe consciousness dies at death and that reincarnation is possible. Will that be good enough?

There is also no sufficient reason to believe that consciousness magically moves on to another body.  That is because we have no understanding of what happens to human consciousness after we dies (thus falsifying reincarnation).  You could argue with the same evidence that there is no sufficient reason to believe that consciousness dies and therefore it is possible that we all transmogrify into flying spaghetti monsters.

That is not an argument for reincarnation.  That is a god of gaps that can be colored in with any fantasy you choose.

Since there is no sufficient reason to believe consciousness dies it is just as possible I wake up the next day as Bilbo Baggins or Captain America

To argue that human consciousness is transferable but without an intact memory or personality is to use a special pleading for consciousness.
#81
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Didnt you just recently have a debate on bigfoots existence? someone could simply same all the current evidence has failed to detect him but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can definitely debate likelihoods and come to a shared conclusion on if its a ridiculous idea to have (like believing in unicorns and dragons).I noticed that you consider yourself a catholic? is that just for aesthetic purposes?
#82
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@oromagi
--> @Ehyeh
I'm not going to argue that reincarnation is not unfalsifiable- triple negative.

You must prove that there is such a thing as a human soul and that when a human dies, that soul is provably transferred to another animal.

If you're not arguing that then you're not really arguing for the existence of reincarnation.
Child prodigies are proof of reincarnation. How can a child have the knowledge of several adults unless it gained the knowledge from past lives?

Christians believe in resurrection which explains why the person being resurrected is basically the same person.
Jesus never became any smarter after his resurrection.
#83
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh
-->@oromagi
Didnt you just recently have a debate on bigfoots existence? someone could simply same all the current evidence has failed to detect him but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
  • If you read that debate you will find that I argued exactly that point: we are past the point where some bipedal megafauna could exist in North America undetectably.  My opponent argued that the idea of Bigfoot proved that Bigfoot exists, but only in the mind.
We can definitely debate likelihoods and come to a shared conclusion on if its a ridiculous idea to have (like believing in unicorns and dragons).
  • My opponent argued that the idea of Bigfoot proved that Bigfoot exists, but only in the mind.  Debate is arguing the truth value of any claim- what's the point of claiming something might be true without evidence?
I noticed that you consider yourself a catholic? is that just for aesthetic purposes?
  • Irish Catholic is my heritage, culture, my family.  I long ago gave up pretending things are true that I do not know are true.


#84
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
If you're capable of showing bigfoot is nonsense (through modern technology) shouldn't you be capable of doing the same with reincarnation? the point of debating is not to get surefire 100% indisputable proof (most of the time). Barely anyone changes their minds from debates, the idea of it is to add more nuance into things and create synthesis between two conflicting ideas to find a new shared resolution. To then debate things where surefire proof is not possible but then be against this debate for the exact same reason feels contradictory to me.
#85
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Shila
How can a child have the knowledge of several adults unless it gained the knowledge from past lives?
  • High intelligence 
Jesus never became any smarter after his resurrection.
  • How do you know that?
#86
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ehyeh
-->@oromagi
If you're capable of showing bigfoot is nonsense (through modern technology) shouldn't you be capable of doing the same with reincarnation?
  • Yes.  Take a survey of all the newborn babies who can speak in complete sentences.  As long as that number remains zero, reincarnation is almost certainly false.

the point of debating is not to get surefire 100% indisputable proof (most of the time).
  • false.
Barely anyone changes their minds from debates,
  • People are stubborn about their biases.  Most people very deliberately believe things without evidence
the idea of it is to add more nuance into things and create synthesis between two conflicting ideas to find a new shared resolution.
  • That is dialectic, not debate.  A very different form of truth searching.
To then debate things where surefire proof is not possible but then be against this debate for the exact same reason feels contradictory to me.
  • because it is mostly just nonsense equivocation.  You aren't really arguing in favor of reincarnation, you are arguing that we don't know what happens after death- a truism you are asking me to overcome.  Only a sucker would take that debate.

#87
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
Irish Catholic is my heritage, culture, my family
Out of curiosity, are you a Romanist? Who is your favorite theologian? And your favorite church father?
#88
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Oromagi. I've said i will argue reincarnation is very likely correct. I've said i will have that burden of proof. Do you want to do it? i have the entire burden of proof.

  • false.
Well then you've been doing it wrong, as all your debates assume a million axioms before the discussion can even begin. What form of "truth seeking" is that?

f you're capable of showing bigfoot is nonsense (through modern technology) shouldn't you be capable of doing the same with reincarnation?
  • Yes.  Take a survey of all the newborn babies who can speak in complete sentences.  As long as that number remains zero, reincarnation is almost certainly false.
We can see if this argument stands or not in our actual debate? if you don't want to do it, that's fine. Just say so.

  • People are stubborn about their biases.  Most people very deliberately believe things without evidence
Wittgenstein would say that simply means they have axioms which were never questioned, so even if you win the debate and they realise they lost. They don't change their mind as a consequence of having an underlying belief which necessitates their current one. All you actually point out is the fact you never find complete truth in any of your debates, as peoples axioms come out unfazed.
#89
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagi
Irish Catholic is my heritage, culture, my family
Out of curiosity, are you a Romanist?
  • That's mostly a Klan term without much meaning beyond insult.  Was that your intent?
Who is your favorite theologian?
  • CS Lewis
And your favorite church father?
  • no preference
#90
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
Let it be known to everyone here with eyes to see and minds to read: Oromagi has made some very bold claims. First he said reincarnation is falsifiable, then he moves the goalpost to continuously saying how unlikely it is despite me cutting off an arm and a leg, giving him all the advantages he could hope for in this debate, yet he still refuses despite being so sure of its unlikelihood. If you're so sure, come and sweep the floor with me like you do with the other 99% you debate. It should be easy. Come get your free win.