A note to all debaters and moderators.

Author: Vici

Posts

Total: 80
Topic's author
#31
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
While trying to prove Barney is a terrible debater,
Already wrong, I'm just proving that he is not a good debater. So you already show your misunderstanding. 

If you didn't want "only DebateArt" to be considered then you shouldn't have said that.
I made the argument that definitions we use are universal. When I used the words "is not" in the resolution, I meant them as per their definition in a normal dictionary. Likewise, the term "debater" is also used as per normal definitions (note that Barney never actually contest this so you are making arguments for him). 

our OPENING ARGUMENT is using debate metrics PROVIDED BY DEBATEART.COM. 
Nope, just like how if I were to ask "are you a good public speaker" I am using the COMMON DEFINTIONS OF public speaker - it is the opponents burden to prove that the definition of good public speaker is "someone who is in the top percentile for this given website. Again, saying "we only consider debate art" CLEARLY indicates we are only using debate art as a source of evidence to draw upon, especially since the second half of the sentence was "we do not consider DDO". 

But rather than use DebateArt metrics to prove this and then proceed to discredit the elo rating and leaderboard, you could have come at it from an entirely different angle and simply showed how Barney's debates themselves were not impressive. 

Again, I really want you to read this, because I think it will clear things up. 

B quite cheekily states the following: I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site. 


Topic's author
#32
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@whiteflame
In your case, the voters reference the description and view what is stated there as a clear limitation on what evidence is pertinent to the debate. 
But the "clear limitation" clearly expresses that the voter has already made an argument. This would be like if someone made a debate about God defining him as "all loving" and "all powerful", for the opponent to say "well from the description these two properties are not compatible therefore I don't need to look at any relavant rebuttals the instigator may have made because this is a reasonable interpretation". obviously, this is an atheist perspective which can be contested, but thats the key word - CAN BE CONTESTED. You can't just say "oh well the voter looked at it and called it a day by just judging the description", especially I made a clear and substantial argument against said interpretation which constituted HALF of my argument. 

It's not an argument given in the debate by your opponent, it's effectively being treated as a rule that precedes any discussion by the debaters. 
Again, this "rule" only applies when the voter bends backwards to interpret it as such. I clearly showed why such an interpretation is not valid through a huge chunk of my argument. My problem isn't that I think the vote is neccesarly wrong, just that it does not even MENTION AT ALL my refutation of the interpretation. 
Topic's author
#33
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@K_Michael
Barney used statistics to demonstrate how highly rated he is compared to most debaters. 
I also said why those statistics aren't good (preemptively mind you). 

I also provided my own statistics, which I made positive arguments for why they are better. 

#34
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,768
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vici
I feel like we're not discussing the same thing anymore. I'm explaining to you what makes a vote sufficient, not what makes it thorough or even what I would say is a "good" vote. It is sufficient for a voter to look at the description and, where they are not extrapolating or adding something that is not clearly present, to determine whether what is there restricts the debate. I don't see them "bend[ing] backwards to interpret it as such." I see them clearly pointing to what is said in the resolution and applying it absolutely to the debate. That's straightforward. I'm not arguing that their interpretations are correct. I'm not arguing that what is in the description cannot be contested. I'm pointing out that these voters have clearly stated, whether in their votes or in follow-up comments, that the contents of the description could not be meaningfully contested, effectively hamstringing your case from the outset. Doing that had a demonstrable effect on how they perceived your points. They didn't have to go through each individual point to show that effect, as it was made clear in general.

What they did here was sufficient, and so far at least, I haven't seen good reason why it violates the voting standards. Again, completely understand that it is not to your liking because it dismisses a large portion of your argument as irrelevant. That does not mean that these votes should be removed by moderation.

Topic's author
#35
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@whiteflame
It is sufficient for a voter to look at the description and, where they are not extrapolating or adding something that is not clearly present, to determine whether what is there restricts the debate. 
Again, someone could do that to argue against me in god. "omnipotence and omnibenevolence are tautologically not compatible. therefore nothing the instigator says would have worked". This counts as not "extrapolating or adding something that is clearly not present" because we are using only two words and also logic to show a tautological impossibility. Of course, there are STRONG responses against this line of reasoning, and I am arguing that when are voting, we MUST look at responses ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT.
#36
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,768
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vici
We're talking about this debate. This one. Not some other potential debate with an entirely different description. This one.

If some future instigator of some future debate decides to include that in the description, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, though again, I'd say it's an apples and oranges comparison. For this debate, you wrote a description that could reasonably be interpreted as limiting the scope of the debate. I'm... honestly not quite sure what you're trying to do with this one. It looks like you just wrote an argument and are saying that you put it in the description.

It's fine if you want to argue that voters should consider "STRONG responses" to the reasoning they use that are present in the debate. It honestly does look like both Public-Choice and K_Michael did, at least from what I'm seeing here. They just don't see that those responses move the needle. You may not like their perspectives on the matter, but they appear to have done it. It's not the place of moderation to do more than assess whether their votes were sufficient, and based on everything I've said so far and taking into account all of your reasons for being against it, they are still sufficient.
#37
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Vici
I also said why those statistics aren't good (preemptively mind you). 

I also provided my own statistics, which I made positive arguments for why they are better. 
The point in my RFD was that Barney's arguments (including his statistics) better met the stipulation in the description that only DART be considered (I also found them more persuasive than your counter). If I had wanted to screw you, I could have claimed that you lost the debate de facto by mentioning DDO debaters like Tejretics and Nyxified, and awarded all points to Barney. What you got was a fair version of my vote.
#38
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Vici
I'm just proving that he is not a good debater.
Not good = bad.

I made the argument that definitions we use are universal
Only: alone in a class or category : SOLE (from Merriam Webster).

So, by your own admission you therefore MUST accept that you are using Just DebateArt and nothing else to determine whether someone is a good or bad debater. There's no other option here.

I am using the COMMON DEFINTIONS OF public speaker
And by doing so you violated your own debate prompt. You are only considering DebateArt. Nothing else, according to the definition of only as provided.

Your definitions are setting your own little special pleading standard that is completely different from the standard you made in your description. That was my issue with your approach. You so obviously and brazenly went outside of your own description.

The debate was never if Barney is objectively good. Your own description limited it to "only DebateArt." Well, only on DebateArt, Barney is a good debater. So you lost.

If you wrote in your description that the debate is over whether Barney is objectively good compared tocall debaters of all time, then I could judge you on your argument. But your argument was nothing but one big red herring from the actual topic of the debate.

You even admitted to this now:
Again, saying "we only consider debate art" CLEARLY indicates we are only using debate art as a source of evidence to draw upon, especially since the second half of the sentence was "we do not consider DDO". 
Well, if we are using DebateArt for the evidence to draw upon, then Barney is a good debater. All other evidence is not allowed to be used. According to DebateArt, the leaderboard, the elo system, other people on the website, Barney is a good debater. He even beat Novice, who is undoubtedly the best debater on this website. So he is a good debater based on your own admissions now. 

Based on the only allowed evidence, the only conclusion is that Barney is a good debater.

Changing the rules with your opening argument is special pleading. And being pointed out on it, and then insisting that your reinvention of the debate's rules is the real debate topic, is a red herring. The point is your description forces me to evaluate the debate based on it. You can't change the debate in the debate itself. You both accepted and agreed to the debate as-is. And you therefore lost it, as is.
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 571
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do you realise I already voted on that debate? lol
#40
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I wonder what will change: his characterization of your vote as unfair or his characterization of you as unbiased.

#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 571
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
I actually agree with vici and wylted that the sources votes are flawed in their justification.

Barney had no overall better source usage than Vici, he just had more of them.
#42
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 571
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
I believe every human is biased in like literally every single situation that 'opinion' can be a factor.

To be relatively unbiased you need to really think through why you are concluding things. There are debates I avoid as I'm biased to be scared to vote against someone for revenge later etc. I have slowly overcome this by firstly being so good that I am difficult to vote against the majority of the time and because I justify my votes well, in my opinion such that debaters can't deny I read and understood their cases by how I vote.
#43
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
I wonder what will change: his characterization of your vote as unfair or his characterization of you as unbiased.
I didn't call his vote unfair. I haven't seen it, I haven't even called the current votes wrong for how they awarded argument points, but there is obviously a clear bias against vici here. Maybe she loses if the bias isn't present. I don't know, but just because votes are one way and bias is present, doesn't mean the bias is wrong
#44
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Well, you did say that Vici hadn't received any fair votes, which seemed to imply that the votes that were there weren't fair. I could have misinterpreted that, however.
#45
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I believe every human is biased in like literally every single situation that 'opinion' can be a factor.
Quite so.
#46
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 571
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
vici is a guy

well,the gender is apparently 'other' but the profile is all false overall now so idk what to believe.
#47
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 52
Posts: 3,141
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Vici
Purely out of curiosity, who actually wrote your R1 arguments? And no, clearly I do not believe you did that datamining in under 3 hours.
#48
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 571
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
He had a lot of time to make the Round 1 before he made the debate itself even.
#49
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
Yeah, I prewrote a debate round once. The best time to write Round 1 as an instigator is before you post the debate.
#50
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 52
Posts: 3,141
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@SirAnonymous
I don't believe they thought I would accept, and there's still a major quality difference. While possible, it seems highly unlikely the person compiled all that data (including data from DDO) is the same one who wrote https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8100-calling-on-debateart-the-biggest-contest-you-have-ever-seen?page=1&post_number=6
#51
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 571
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
No it doesn't, I am like that myself. Not everyone is some uptight twat 24/7 sometimes we let loose and go madman mode.
Topic's author
#52
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Barney
Purely out of curiosity, who actually wrote your R1 arguments? And no, clearly I do not believe you did that datamining in under 3 hours.
Oh that's very interesting. You obviously think I'm stupid, which means that you doubting that I wrote my own argument implies that you think my argument is not stupid! Thanks for the compliment! Though you may find it difficult to write 5000 characters in 3 hours, I find it to be quite manageable, although I do have a normal IQ so that may be the difference. 
Topic's author
#53
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@whiteflame

It's fine if you want to argue that voters should consider "STRONG responses" to the reasoning they use that are present in the debate. It honestly does look like both Public-Choice and K_Michael did, at least from what I'm seeing here. They just don't see that those responses move the needle. You may not like their perspectives on the matter, but they appear to have done it. It's not the place of moderation to do more than assess whether their votes were sufficient, and based on everything I've said so far and taking into account all of your reasons for being against it, they are still sufficient.

Look I can see you clearly have bias against me. I'm NOT saying the voter should look at my strong arguments, I AM SAYING THAT VOTERS SHOULD LOOK AT A REBUTTAL I PROPOSE. Again, this is like saying "I posed the Kalam cosmological argument and as the problem of does not refute it I win" ALL WHILST IGNORING MY OPPOENTS REFUTATION TO THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. I don't see how this is difficult to understand - Barney makes claim X. I refute with not X. Voter says that Y does not refute X ALL WHILST IGNORING NOT X. 

The votes which were put in were terrible. From the conduct point to the argument point, they ignore my argument. Look I get that you hate me and want to protect barney, but this is just fucking unfair towards me. 
#54
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,768
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vici
Again, feels like we’re having two different conversations. I doubt there’s much I can do to explain this any further than I already have, and it seems that with every response you give me, you keep moving further and further away from the reason I have given and expanded upon for why these votes met the voting standards. If you want to engage directly with what I’ve said on the matter, I’ll address what you respond with, but this isn’t a response to what I’ve posted. You clearly have a very different conception of why these votes stand after being reported.

If you view it as bias on my part, then I guess that’s how you’ll continue to view it. Believe it or not, I neither hate you nor have any interest in using my position to make things difficult for you or to protect Barney from losing a debate. I sincerely doubt that my saying that will change your mind, but it’s the truth.
#55
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 52
Posts: 3,141
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Vici
That you did that level of datamining in under 3 hours, to include records from DDO (which you had a rule explicitly against...) is amazingly impressive. Good job!
#56
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well, you did say that Vici hadn't received any fair votes, which seemed to imply that the votes that were there weren't fair. I could have misinterpreted that, however
Are you intentionally misinterpreting me?

A vote can have both fair and unfair elements. The source points were unfair
#57
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
well,the gender is apparently 'other' but the profile is all false overall now so idk what to believe.
So a guy is being a whiny little bitch? I will stick to referring to her as a female. 
#58
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Are you intentionally misinterpreting me?
No.
A vote can have both fair and unfair elements. The source points were unfair
Ok.
#59
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 52
Posts: 3,141
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON

Barney just source spammed the debate
Simply untrue.

To raise the debate above mere assertions or voting based on who the voter like, evidence was needed for voters to weigh. Further, unlike Vici, I did not base any of my evidence on DDO; but rather positive contributions on this site and beyond.

Take my saving lives using my debate skills as an example. One source was to show this is longstanding knowledge, and another to show the death rates I did something about.

One thing Vici and I agree on is that good debaters are good an analysis; therefore I presented samples of my analysis ability to be compared to any others she could have offered. It was give actual examples, or just treat my skill level as a truism and not really argue it.

P.S.: When I found a vote in my favor to be lacking, I politely informed the voter of the error and pushed for it to be removed. I have not reported any votes against me (I very rarely do).
#60
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Simply untrue.

To raise the debate above mere assertions or voting based on who the voter like, evidence was needed for voters to weigh. Further, unlike Vici, I did not base any of my evidence on DDO; but rather positive contributions on this site and beyond.
I meant that as a form of rhetoric to display my point. I don't actually think your source spammed. I don't think you did anything wrong. 

I think it took a lot of courage to take the debate and some how managed to conduct yourself honorably and did not take the easy route of being arrogant. 

I do think you should challenge yourself more, but I have no room to speak. I have not been able to try hard on a debate since DDO was a thing