**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote describes a final round blitzkrieg, and review of the debate supports this as a wholly objective interpretation. That the voter added extra details to help con improve, does not invalidate this glaring issue which was the foundation of their vote.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
**************************************************
Now that voting has closed... Regarding your vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3817/comment-links/47204
> The only argument [for analysis] he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good".
This misunderstanding speaks of either not understanding how to weigh arguments against each other (Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole), and/or having not read the majority of the debate (seriously, do a word search for "analy"). The analysis abilities were showcased throughout the round, with the single paragraph you read there even pointing that out before highlighting two extra proofs (one of which contextually used pro's own evidence against them).
> pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo...
This would be an /ok/ assessment of a single contention, if contentions exist wholly in isolation.
> very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit
This is showing an opinion not supported with what was presented in the debate. I suggest doing a word search for "forfeit" and rereading the relevant paragraphs. Pro's line of reasoning even opened up that according to their metric defeating Oromagi might mean someone is bad at debating based on unknown future performance (which was the key indicator that various people with positive win records I defeated meant I'm actually somehow bad). Even then, it's ok if you buy that, but why it wholly overrides less subjective measurements offered should be explained.
...
From the voting policy, right away there's the highlight "Strive to be fair." No one is going to think you're doing that, if you don't give at least a passing review of their core contentions (especially when they're laid out and numbered so clearly).
If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?"
As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours, and then when I listed mine you dropped the point.
Removed vote for insufficient analysis.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sufficiency
RFD:
Sorry everybody! Here's my real vote.
Pro was equal to Con regarding Grammar and Conduct, however Con's arguments were much longer and more detailed. While there were good sources on both sides, Con's are much more reliable (I mean, it IS a dictionary after all)
So, even though I agree with Pro, Con has better arguments. Con wins this IMO.
The whole thing can get long, but in gist, think of a vote as a short movie review with spoilers. These two debaters make it pretty easy with clear contention headings. You don't need to list every sub-plot, but if you were reviewing The Dark Knight returns certainly the main characters fates at each others hands should be mentioned (treating them as contentions, rather than as the debaters).
Sources tend to be tied so long as both sides do their due diligence. Any point other than arguments should only be awarded for a serious lead in that category, regardless of who wins arguments (every so often I'll find someone's use of evidence superior, even while they ultimately lose arguments).
Something fantastic about your votes, is you're a rare person who can recognize the difference between your personal preference and who you believe argued better; please keep it up, and you'll be an amazing voter in hardly any time at all.
I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children. But that's my ethical bias showing itself.
You didn't prove me wrong. To prove me wrong you'd need to hack into the server and edit your previous arguments were relied upon DDO.
All you did was declare that mixing the data sets together at random doesn't count as using the wrong one so long as some unknown amount of the data is from the right place. Which is mind numbingly stupid.
Your sample set of data included records harvested from DDO, reducing the only contention you didn't wholly lose on to be a direct violation of your own rule.
If you wanted to debate that my performance on DDO sucks if we ignore my records from DDO and contrast that against other peoples, that is the debate you should have challenged me to; instead that's the only line of argument anyone thinks you didn't completely lose on, and again, a violation of your own rule.
Removed RFD:
I think I am a little bit biased here but honestly I think con had slightly better arguments. Honestly this whole debate was a little... odd.
Reason:
The vote is too vague. In future, just list /at least/ one contention from each side and how it was argued to draw your conclusion.
Vici has demanded a rematch, and I've accepted. It can be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3865-barney-is-not-a-good-debater-finale-atbarney
I don't need history from DDO to prove I'm good. But for the record, it's damned easy to find (as you should know, since you relied upon evidence from that site in the previous debate...):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160722050304/http://www.debate.org/Ragnar/
I had asked you to define a scale (what percentile of debaters here I need to be better than to be considered good). I am not seeing it. Last time you wholly lost on three out of four metrics you came up with, and the one you didn't wholly lose just put me at 3rd or 4th place out of over 600 debaters. Further, your profile proclaims victory in various debates you lost; so yeah, I want you to pre-agree what you losing would look like.
I am curious why added rule against DDO, when last time your case relied upon evidence from that site.
If in doubt, I advise simply not reading commentary before voting.
Personally, I try to keep my comments on my own active debates minimal to avoid risk the of unduly swaying potential voters.
> His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping
There was an implied accusation (without evidence), that my win record was from noob sniping. Therefore I offered additional evidence on the matter to to remove any sliver of doubt that it was non-sequitur. Throughout the debate you can see a consistent theme when it comes to which side has evidence to raise ideas above being hollow assertions.
As for me not showing enough of my analysis skills: What better analysis was shown from any other debater? Particularly the average debater whom I am equal or less than?
IMO the debate showed clearly that the average debater would forfeit at least half of those. But that is just me nitpicking. If the comparative evidence did not suggest to you I'm at least good, as much as I disagree, the fault lies with me for not using enough evidence.
I accepted BoP even while it traditionally rests on pro, as I did not want to engage in a debate over BoP instead of comparative evidence; especially not when there are already too few characters to fit said evidence in. Regardless, I believe I utilized her own words on it well, since no better analysis was shown in any area by any other debater, particularly not outside this site. From the metric of outside this site, what better accomplishments than mine were cited?
As for considering me to me a mere 1500 ELO level debater, I believe my arguments overly refuted that.
As for her calculation, I do not think I am great under it, as much as even it shows me to be vastly superior to the average debater (remember, she insists forfeiting counts as debating).
A good argumentation tactic is to imagine someone agrees with the other side, and then build a case that casts doubt upon the core tenets of that agreement. Hence why I engaged with the "No one on this site is a good debater" line of argument with a Catch-22.
I don't know what Ramshutu has to do with this, or why a question for him was aimed at me.
As far as my answer to the question: It's a single debate to which the instigator had no reason to believe the contender would be banned, so not farming.
Were the contender to have had any open challenges, they would have been deleted (I can't remember if they did or not).
I did not even realize the Tejretics victory was back on DDO. I did find the reference to him as a DDO goat as odd considering the no DDO rule; but I ran out of characters to address that.
I agree that a clear standard for good debater going in would have improved matters. With the low character limit, some of my commentary on that ended up on the cutting room floor.
However, I don’t recall using my vote history (as extensive as it is) as evidence. A case could be made that good at voting equals good at debating, but I did not draw that link.
lmao!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote describes a final round blitzkrieg, and review of the debate supports this as a wholly objective interpretation. That the voter added extra details to help con improve, does not invalidate this glaring issue which was the foundation of their vote.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
**************************************************
I should have time to review this on Monday.
> including surgery
Surgery is dangerous. Frequently less dangerous than the alternative, but still dangerous.
Pokémons would lose without their trainer to guide them.
Ironic forfeiture considering cons argument.
Now that voting has closed... Regarding your vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3817/comment-links/47204
> The only argument [for analysis] he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good".
This misunderstanding speaks of either not understanding how to weigh arguments against each other (Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole), and/or having not read the majority of the debate (seriously, do a word search for "analy"). The analysis abilities were showcased throughout the round, with the single paragraph you read there even pointing that out before highlighting two extra proofs (one of which contextually used pro's own evidence against them).
> pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo...
This would be an /ok/ assessment of a single contention, if contentions exist wholly in isolation.
> very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit
This is showing an opinion not supported with what was presented in the debate. I suggest doing a word search for "forfeit" and rereading the relevant paragraphs. Pro's line of reasoning even opened up that according to their metric defeating Oromagi might mean someone is bad at debating based on unknown future performance (which was the key indicator that various people with positive win records I defeated meant I'm actually somehow bad). Even then, it's ok if you buy that, but why it wholly overrides less subjective measurements offered should be explained.
...
From the voting policy, right away there's the highlight "Strive to be fair." No one is going to think you're doing that, if you don't give at least a passing review of their core contentions (especially when they're laid out and numbered so clearly).
Thank you for voting, and for giving such good feedback as to the weaknesses of my case.
If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?"
As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours, and then when I listed mine you dropped the point.
Removed vote for insufficient analysis.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sufficiency
RFD:
Sorry everybody! Here's my real vote.
Pro was equal to Con regarding Grammar and Conduct, however Con's arguments were much longer and more detailed. While there were good sources on both sides, Con's are much more reliable (I mean, it IS a dictionary after all)
So, even though I agree with Pro, Con has better arguments. Con wins this IMO.
Good evening,
Please review
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#arguments
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
The whole thing can get long, but in gist, think of a vote as a short movie review with spoilers. These two debaters make it pretty easy with clear contention headings. You don't need to list every sub-plot, but if you were reviewing The Dark Knight returns certainly the main characters fates at each others hands should be mentioned (treating them as contentions, rather than as the debaters).
Sources tend to be tied so long as both sides do their due diligence. Any point other than arguments should only be awarded for a serious lead in that category, regardless of who wins arguments (every so often I'll find someone's use of evidence superior, even while they ultimately lose arguments).
Something fantastic about your votes, is you're a rare person who can recognize the difference between your personal preference and who you believe argued better; please keep it up, and you'll be an amazing voter in hardly any time at all.
Reason:
Honestly I pronounce it GIF with a soft g (pro's argument) but RationalMadman ultimately wins this debate IMO.
Removed by voter request.
Thank you for the extremely detailed vote.
I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children. But that's my ethical bias showing itself.
You set the arguments to 2 hours. That creates only a very small opportunity to write and post your case.
Welcome to the site. Unless watching this one closely, you’ll end up forfeiting those 2 hour posting windows.
Yes, your previous one did.
You didn't prove me wrong. To prove me wrong you'd need to hack into the server and edit your previous arguments were relied upon DDO.
All you did was declare that mixing the data sets together at random doesn't count as using the wrong one so long as some unknown amount of the data is from the right place. Which is mind numbingly stupid.
Just post your argument if you have one.
Your sample set of data included records harvested from DDO, reducing the only contention you didn't wholly lose on to be a direct violation of your own rule.
If you wanted to debate that my performance on DDO sucks if we ignore my records from DDO and contrast that against other peoples, that is the debate you should have challenged me to; instead that's the only line of argument anyone thinks you didn't completely lose on, and again, a violation of your own rule.
Removed RFD:
I think I am a little bit biased here but honestly I think con had slightly better arguments. Honestly this whole debate was a little... odd.
Reason:
The vote is too vague. In future, just list /at least/ one contention from each side and how it was argued to draw your conclusion.
Read: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3817-barney-is-not-a-good-debater
If it helps, you can use Ctrl+F to do a word search.
Vici has demanded a rematch, and I've accepted. It can be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3865-barney-is-not-a-good-debater-finale-atbarney
I don't need history from DDO to prove I'm good. But for the record, it's damned easy to find (as you should know, since you relied upon evidence from that site in the previous debate...):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160722050304/http://www.debate.org/Ragnar/
Anyways, good luck!
I had asked you to define a scale (what percentile of debaters here I need to be better than to be considered good). I am not seeing it. Last time you wholly lost on three out of four metrics you came up with, and the one you didn't wholly lose just put me at 3rd or 4th place out of over 600 debaters. Further, your profile proclaims victory in various debates you lost; so yeah, I want you to pre-agree what you losing would look like.
I am curious why added rule against DDO, when last time your case relied upon evidence from that site.
Try to imagine that I have a job. You blowing up my inbox and whining here doesn’t change my time limitations.
There’s literally a two week period to accept challenges, giving ample opportunity to come to agreed terms.
Removed due to missing argument analysis.
RFD:
RationalMadman cited previous debates and comments. Mall did not cite any sources.
Points:
Sources to pro.
Details:
Arguments have to be weighed unless one side repeatedly forfeited.
If in doubt, I advise simply not reading commentary before voting.
Personally, I try to keep my comments on my own active debates minimal to avoid risk the of unduly swaying potential voters.
> His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping
There was an implied accusation (without evidence), that my win record was from noob sniping. Therefore I offered additional evidence on the matter to to remove any sliver of doubt that it was non-sequitur. Throughout the debate you can see a consistent theme when it comes to which side has evidence to raise ideas above being hollow assertions.
As for me not showing enough of my analysis skills: What better analysis was shown from any other debater? Particularly the average debater whom I am equal or less than?
IMO the debate showed clearly that the average debater would forfeit at least half of those. But that is just me nitpicking. If the comparative evidence did not suggest to you I'm at least good, as much as I disagree, the fault lies with me for not using enough evidence.
Bump to encourage voting (really busy this weekend, or I would vote).
Thank you for voting.
I accepted BoP even while it traditionally rests on pro, as I did not want to engage in a debate over BoP instead of comparative evidence; especially not when there are already too few characters to fit said evidence in. Regardless, I believe I utilized her own words on it well, since no better analysis was shown in any area by any other debater, particularly not outside this site. From the metric of outside this site, what better accomplishments than mine were cited?
As for considering me to me a mere 1500 ELO level debater, I believe my arguments overly refuted that.
As for her calculation, I do not think I am great under it, as much as even it shows me to be vastly superior to the average debater (remember, she insists forfeiting counts as debating).
Likewise!
Odd debate. FF by con, but utter BoP failure by pro.
While not often, I've had a few open challenges over the years. Had you done your research on me, you'd know that.
Plus since you believe online debating does not count; how the eff do you imagine I sniped my debate opponents in Iraq?
Looking forward to seeing Intelligence’s rebuttals.
A good argumentation tactic is to imagine someone agrees with the other side, and then build a case that casts doubt upon the core tenets of that agreement. Hence why I engaged with the "No one on this site is a good debater" line of argument with a Catch-22.
Anyways, I hope you'll take the time to vote.
Your arguments are definitely improving. I suggest focusing a little on presentation and structure.
Skimmed this. While I agree with con, I strongly suspect my vote will favor pro for quality of arguments.
Not enough time to review.
With all the hype you've raised for this debate, I'm surprised you have not nominated it for the Hall of Fame.
I don't know what Ramshutu has to do with this, or why a question for him was aimed at me.
As far as my answer to the question: It's a single debate to which the instigator had no reason to believe the contender would be banned, so not farming.
Were the contender to have had any open challenges, they would have been deleted (I can't remember if they did or not).
Oh and thanks for voting.
I did not even realize the Tejretics victory was back on DDO. I did find the reference to him as a DDO goat as odd considering the no DDO rule; but I ran out of characters to address that.
> That word is spelled rationale not rational, FYI.
Thank you for that correction.
I am not sure what I just read...
Thank you for revoting with the rational for sources extended.
I agree that a clear standard for good debater going in would have improved matters. With the low character limit, some of my commentary on that ended up on the cutting room floor.
Thank you for voting.
However, I don’t recall using my vote history (as extensive as it is) as evidence. A case could be made that good at voting equals good at debating, but I did not draw that link.
Thank you for voting.
Sure thing. Please remind me once their round ends.
Welcome to the site, and good luck on your first debate.
Both use re-writing time to keep from growing up!