bullshit.
Encyclopedia Britannica: ' the public has come to expect certain conventional features and a publisher departs from the conventions at his peril. One of the chief demands is that a dictionary should be “authoritative,”
OED: "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. "
Princeton LIbrary: OED Online "Considered the most authoritative and comprehensive English language dictionary in the world. "
"Dictionaries do not DEFINE words."
bullshit.
Encyclopedia Britannica: " In addition to its basic function of defining words, a dictionary may provide information about their pronunciation, grammatical forms and functions, etymologies, syntactic peculiarities, variant spellings, and antonyms."
"The listed definitions are not EXHAUSTIVE."
Which ought not to imply that words are therefore open for free interpretation according to one's feelings
"And they change over time."
Nobody has suggested otherwise.
> In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries.
No. No it is not. ... their job is to gather a collection of the most common usages of words based on how they are used by professional editors of magazines and newspapers (and of course electronic publications) in any given year.
In spite of your 'no' you are explicitly agreeing with me that words should be defined by dictionaries as "the most common usage" and not according to the subjective desires of Double_R as proposed.
> Let's disregard Atheist sources as self-interested and so less than objective. Let's disregard Christian sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "Christian". Let's disregard Communist sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "Communism". Let's disregard African-American sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "African-American".
Correct. For example, most African-Americans would prefer that the definition only include US decedents of sub-Saharan blacks but any objective usage consistent with similar usages, Franco-American, Polish-American, etc would mean all African immigrants, including North Africans and Afrikaans. Should we change the rules for one interest group or apply the terminology in an objectively consistent fashion? Many Christians would toss out other Christians as we have seen in recent debates. Any objective reading of the theory of Communism suggests that there have been few if any Communists as defined by Marx and Engels (the means of production controlled the people collectively without money, class, or state authority).
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
and therefore, we could just as easily use the word agnosticism without lack of clarity. But if we eliminate the use of ATHEISM in the first sense, what word should we use to talk about theories that deny the existence of god altogether?
"If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top."
If I defeated PRO's impacts without offering positive impacts of BLM then both values would be zero and so, neither much WORSE. According to PRO's own sources:
BLM protests "precipitated a worldwide debate on policing and racial injustice that has led to numerous legislative proposals on federal, state, and municipal levels in the U.S. intended to combat police misconduct, systemic racism, qualified immunity and police brutality." I maintain that in America, upholding the Constitution and Democracy are manifestly positive impacts. Collectively, these goods far outweigh the zero harms PRO has documented.
What I want to know is if your plan succeeds and ATHEISM is redefined as the same "lack of belief" as AGNOSTICISM, then what word will you apply to people who actively disbelieve in any deity? You are going to need a new word for that but you fail to offer any suggestions.
"[subjective] wasn't a retreat, it was literally the entire point of the debate."
Then it was a mistake to refrain from saying so until the very end of the second round and immediately after claiming "My authority is reason and common sense." That is, you claim authority stems from your objective merits, then say your debate is subjective by definition. If this debate is really subjective, then CON still wins since my feelings tend against subverting well established meaning and commonplace understandings.
"The question of how a word *should* be defined is one that is not answered by looking at history and dictionaries."
In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries.
" It is clearly an attempt to challenge the conventional wisdom, so sources citing the conventional wisdom are irrelevant and useless."
In other words, conventional wisdom and common sense are not your allies in this debate. Agreed.
"Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results"
That's quite false. I have demonstrated that all of PRO's impacts are illegitimate because they credit total impacts to BLM- which is a wild exaggeration of the truth according to PRO's own sources. PRO has failed to list even a single honest impact limited to BLM conduct and therefore PRO has failed to present any impact whatsoever.
PRO's retreats by calling the debate "subjective" halfway through the debate and immediately following his assertion of reasoned argument. If PRO's authority is all reason, then that truth should override our perception. If the definition of ATHEISM is now suddenly an individual, subjective choice, then PRO has cut the throat of his own thesis (the definition of atheism should just be "a lack of belief" NOT "the definition of atheism is only "a lack of belief" and/or whatever else you might feel."
CON correctly goes right after PRO's wishwash as an attempt to move the goalposts away from the "ATHEISM should only mean "lack of belief" but then wastes a lot of irrelevantly addressing atheism as an ideology rather than as definition of an ideology. I prefer CON's etymology precisely because he relies on sources.
Both sides incorrectly assert that one definition of ATHEISM is superior to others without acknowledging that the meaning of words is independent from the ideological consistency of the idea expressed by that word. Both sides do a better job at refuting the other's case than making an affirmative argument for exclusively one definition. But at the end of the day, arguing that a broader definition of a word is less useful than the most strict definition of a word is always going to beat an argument that the strict definition is less useful. The stricter definition defines outlines of a set that the general idea deliberately leaves undefined.
Ultimately, neither side made a compelling case for excluding the other's definition but only PRO had the burden to prove exclusion was a good idea. PRO's contention stands disproved and so CON wins the argument.
SOURCES go to CON as well so PRO unwisely ignored authorities on etymology, theology, lexicography, atheism and then his reliance on Mirriam-Webster directly refutes PRO's argument. CON reliance on SOURCES to establish normal usage of the word was essential to CON's victory.
Hi Bogan, welcome to the site! As instigator, you have the responsibility of formulating the argument to which the Contender will make a counterargument. Now you've spent your first argument on a process question. You could make your whole argument in Round2 but I would advise that would put you at serious disadvantage. If you'd like, we could ask the moderators to delete this debate and give you another crack at instigation. If you do so, feel free to invite me particularly or refuse me particularly (I am an experienced debater on this site and there's no dishonor to wanting a more balanced opponent). If permitted, I will happily re-accept.
That's right. I don't want to continue arguments outside of the debate but it really should just come down to which definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is more accurate and more fairly presented and whether PRO violated his own prohibition against informal fallacy.
=> Although this does not matter to me because I just defend my points like a mother bear defending her cub.
That's right, scores can be deceptive and have no influence on this debate's outcome. Every debate should be scored on its own merits. I look forward to your R2!
No, but easily googled. It's kind of weird but I've seen this kind of think four or five times- a user creates a new account, challenges me to a debate and then never returns. One user challenged me in Tagalog and never responded although I translated all my arguments to his language.
"You know what I didnt see? Pro saying anything other than hypocrisy is okay."
I agree that is all you saw which is why you lost this debate since there was plenty more to Jeff's argument and when we are deciding on public policy, fear of hypocrisy is mostly a minor consideration. If mere hypocrisy is the worst result from a public policy decision then that is one damn successful policy. As Penn Gillette often quips, "The advantage of hypocrisy is that it doubles your chances getting something right."
You've asked me to debate you.
You've expressed confidence that you could beat me in a debate on the 2020 election.
You've been invited to accept that very debate.
Why haven't you accepted? That debate expires tomorrow.
"The author... who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocrevote."
The claim I am refuting is "Ragnar does not understand how to vote in debates" I have not read the debate or Ragnar's vote and have no opinion on either. I am refuting Novice's manifestly false claim that Ragnar does not understand the voting process on DART when in fact, Ragnar more or less IS the voting process on DART.
"One thing I should mention is that I actually like Barney, as my narrow general default liking for everyone extends to him. I am saying these things to help ham because he has to understand these things. No ill will from my side, it is, I promise, out of concern"
"This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is saying someone falls under the label of an insult therefore their conclusion is false. "
Argumentum ad hominem is "an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. "
Barney is an idiot
Barney is incompetent.... he is simply too stupid
Barney is an imbecile
Classic ad hom without any supporting argument. In context, this is bullying the voter with insults to try to get the voter to change their vote. Extremely poor conduct.
p1) People who aren't stupid can vote effectively
Easily falsified. Many intelligent people fail to vote effectively because they prioritize personal loyalties, or lack education, vote single issue, are too lazy to vote, etc.
p2) Barney is stupid
Easily falsified. A 20 minute scan of Ragnar's dominant rhetorical performances on DDO and DART demonstrate why he has been recognized as a leader in online debating for years.
c) Therefore, Barney cannot vote effectively
Formal Aristotelean violation there, bub. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. Even if your major premise were not manifestly false, it provides no information about stupid people much less how stupid people vote. Rationally, one may not infer that stupid people cannot vote effective just because non-stupid people can.
Conclusion: Novice cannot even logic much less argue much less take advice
"Just because someone created or playeda role in creating somthing, it does not follow that they automatically can (in practice) excersize such fucntion based on the criteria they may have created to a sufficent degree. For example: Thomas Jefferson the parimary writer of the declaration of independence clearly documented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" but he also had slaves."
Poor comprehension of the genetic fallacy and therefore shit description. A GENETIC FALLACY is "a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the irrelevant source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence." So if you were debating "Let's put gay people in concentration camps" or whatever, Thomas Jefferson would not be a particularly relevant source in spite of his manifest erudition and genetic fallacy might apply. However, If you are going to argue that Thomas Jefferson does not know much about the Declaration of Independence then you are going to look like an idiot.
In this instance you are claiming "Ragnar doesn't know how to vote on DART." The facts that Ragnar is the most prolific voter on the site and that Ragnar authored the rules you claim he does not know are 100% relevant to topic and utterly devastating to the case of any rational claimant. By definition, the author of any work is an expert on that work's contents.
"Either he just doesn't know or understand how to vote in debates, "
It is possible you don't know that under another username, Ragnar is not just the top voter on this site, he is also an author of some of the voting standards. He wrote the rules you are claiming he doesn't understand.
"he is simply too stupid to do it effectively, "
oof. do you not know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think ad homs in comments section are going to win you points, then you are the dummy. You got to be cool in your debate demeanor, cool in comments, classier than your opponent- that's how you win debates. Sour grapes convinces no voters.
In the late 80's, Will Shortz used to author a weekly puzzle in syndication in many arts and entertainment weekly tabloids. My local weekly carried it for a few years and offered 2 free tickets to the Ogden Theatre to the first five correct answers. I discovered that if I painted the envelope containing the puzzle answer with elaborate depictions of fishtanks, toucans, planetary systems, etc that I always won- even when I was not likely to have been one of the first five correct answers.
Dictionaries are not AUTHORITATIVE.
bullshit.
Encyclopedia Britannica: ' the public has come to expect certain conventional features and a publisher departs from the conventions at his peril. One of the chief demands is that a dictionary should be “authoritative,”
OED: "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. "
Princeton LIbrary: OED Online "Considered the most authoritative and comprehensive English language dictionary in the world. "
"Dictionaries do not DEFINE words."
bullshit.
Encyclopedia Britannica: " In addition to its basic function of defining words, a dictionary may provide information about their pronunciation, grammatical forms and functions, etymologies, syntactic peculiarities, variant spellings, and antonyms."
"The listed definitions are not EXHAUSTIVE."
Which ought not to imply that words are therefore open for free interpretation according to one's feelings
"And they change over time."
Nobody has suggested otherwise.
Obviously, I was replying to the comments you deleted.
> In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries.
No. No it is not. ... their job is to gather a collection of the most common usages of words based on how they are used by professional editors of magazines and newspapers (and of course electronic publications) in any given year.
In spite of your 'no' you are explicitly agreeing with me that words should be defined by dictionaries as "the most common usage" and not according to the subjective desires of Double_R as proposed.
> Let's disregard Atheist sources as self-interested and so less than objective. Let's disregard Christian sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "Christian". Let's disregard Communist sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "Communism". Let's disregard African-American sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "African-American".
Correct. For example, most African-Americans would prefer that the definition only include US decedents of sub-Saharan blacks but any objective usage consistent with similar usages, Franco-American, Polish-American, etc would mean all African immigrants, including North Africans and Afrikaans. Should we change the rules for one interest group or apply the terminology in an objectively consistent fashion? Many Christians would toss out other Christians as we have seen in recent debates. Any objective reading of the theory of Communism suggests that there have been few if any Communists as defined by Marx and Engels (the means of production controlled the people collectively without money, class, or state authority).
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
and therefore, we could just as easily use the word agnosticism without lack of clarity. But if we eliminate the use of ATHEISM in the first sense, what word should we use to talk about theories that deny the existence of god altogether?
You're right. We should refrain from correcting misapprehensions in comments. Let the debate speak for itself.
"If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top."
If I defeated PRO's impacts without offering positive impacts of BLM then both values would be zero and so, neither much WORSE. According to PRO's own sources:
BLM protests "precipitated a worldwide debate on policing and racial injustice that has led to numerous legislative proposals on federal, state, and municipal levels in the U.S. intended to combat police misconduct, systemic racism, qualified immunity and police brutality." I maintain that in America, upholding the Constitution and Democracy are manifestly positive impacts. Collectively, these goods far outweigh the zero harms PRO has documented.
What I want to know is if your plan succeeds and ATHEISM is redefined as the same "lack of belief" as AGNOSTICISM, then what word will you apply to people who actively disbelieve in any deity? You are going to need a new word for that but you fail to offer any suggestions.
"[subjective] wasn't a retreat, it was literally the entire point of the debate."
Then it was a mistake to refrain from saying so until the very end of the second round and immediately after claiming "My authority is reason and common sense." That is, you claim authority stems from your objective merits, then say your debate is subjective by definition. If this debate is really subjective, then CON still wins since my feelings tend against subverting well established meaning and commonplace understandings.
"The question of how a word *should* be defined is one that is not answered by looking at history and dictionaries."
In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries.
" It is clearly an attempt to challenge the conventional wisdom, so sources citing the conventional wisdom are irrelevant and useless."
In other words, conventional wisdom and common sense are not your allies in this debate. Agreed.
"atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
that's right, OXFORD matches all other dictionaries
disbelief=strict sense of atheism
lack of belief=broader sense of atheism
What is Atheism? - American Atheists
What is atheism? - Atheist Alliance International
Let's disregard Atheist sources as self-interested and so less than objective.
"Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results"
That's quite false. I have demonstrated that all of PRO's impacts are illegitimate because they credit total impacts to BLM- which is a wild exaggeration of the truth according to PRO's own sources. PRO has failed to list even a single honest impact limited to BLM conduct and therefore PRO has failed to present any impact whatsoever.
PRO's retreats by calling the debate "subjective" halfway through the debate and immediately following his assertion of reasoned argument. If PRO's authority is all reason, then that truth should override our perception. If the definition of ATHEISM is now suddenly an individual, subjective choice, then PRO has cut the throat of his own thesis (the definition of atheism should just be "a lack of belief" NOT "the definition of atheism is only "a lack of belief" and/or whatever else you might feel."
CON correctly goes right after PRO's wishwash as an attempt to move the goalposts away from the "ATHEISM should only mean "lack of belief" but then wastes a lot of irrelevantly addressing atheism as an ideology rather than as definition of an ideology. I prefer CON's etymology precisely because he relies on sources.
Both sides incorrectly assert that one definition of ATHEISM is superior to others without acknowledging that the meaning of words is independent from the ideological consistency of the idea expressed by that word. Both sides do a better job at refuting the other's case than making an affirmative argument for exclusively one definition. But at the end of the day, arguing that a broader definition of a word is less useful than the most strict definition of a word is always going to beat an argument that the strict definition is less useful. The stricter definition defines outlines of a set that the general idea deliberately leaves undefined.
Ultimately, neither side made a compelling case for excluding the other's definition but only PRO had the burden to prove exclusion was a good idea. PRO's contention stands disproved and so CON wins the argument.
SOURCES go to CON as well so PRO unwisely ignored authorities on etymology, theology, lexicography, atheism and then his reliance on Mirriam-Webster directly refutes PRO's argument. CON reliance on SOURCES to establish normal usage of the word was essential to CON's victory.
Hi Bogan, welcome to the site! As instigator, you have the responsibility of formulating the argument to which the Contender will make a counterargument. Now you've spent your first argument on a process question. You could make your whole argument in Round2 but I would advise that would put you at serious disadvantage. If you'd like, we could ask the moderators to delete this debate and give you another crack at instigation. If you do so, feel free to invite me particularly or refuse me particularly (I am an experienced debater on this site and there's no dishonor to wanting a more balanced opponent). If permitted, I will happily re-accept.
Thanks for voting!
We are in agreement there. I regret you won't be voting.
That's right. I don't want to continue arguments outside of the debate but it really should just come down to which definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is more accurate and more fairly presented and whether PRO violated his own prohibition against informal fallacy.
Three days remaining.
R3 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp88QaUm92Q
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories#database
https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf
https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy89em/new-video-jorge-gomez-blm-shooting-las-vegas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Sean_Monterrosa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shooting
=> Although this does not matter to me because I just defend my points like a mother bear defending her cub.
That's right, scores can be deceptive and have no influence on this debate's outcome. Every debate should be scored on its own merits. I look forward to your R2!
R2 SOURCES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches#%22Bloody_Sunday%22_events
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/texas-men-arrested-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-during-jan-6-capitol-breach
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence#Seeking-Info
https://perma.cc/A9WT-WWVS
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/06/12/amid-protests-majorities-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups-express-support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/19/us/joe-biden-trump-updates#trump-tries-to-subvert-the-election-inviting-michigan-gop-lawmakers-to-the-white-house
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd
https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-attack-14c73ee280c256ab4ec193ac0f49ad54
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/trump-capitol-attack-democracy-election-insurrection-index
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/28/896515022/minneapolis-police-reportedly-identify-viral-umbrella-man-as-white-supremacist
https://www.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/san-antonio-area-boogaloo-bois-follower-admits-to-firing-shots-at-police-station-during-riot/Content?oid=27257236
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests
https://perma.cc/A9WT-WWVS
https://www.climate.gov/disasters2020#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20United%20States,landfalling%20hurricanes%20or%20tropical%20storms.
"If you get the meme reference"
No, but easily googled. It's kind of weird but I've seen this kind of think four or five times- a user creates a new account, challenges me to a debate and then never returns. One user challenged me in Tagalog and never responded although I translated all my arguments to his language.
Thanks for voting!
"You know what I didnt see? Pro saying anything other than hypocrisy is okay."
I agree that is all you saw which is why you lost this debate since there was plenty more to Jeff's argument and when we are deciding on public policy, fear of hypocrisy is mostly a minor consideration. If mere hypocrisy is the worst result from a public policy decision then that is one damn successful policy. As Penn Gillette often quips, "The advantage of hypocrisy is that it doubles your chances getting something right."
"“Oh, boy! My first debate! This will be a casual and fun experi- Oromagi has accepted your debate challenge!"
Again, for the record- he challenged me. He was not surprised by who his opponent was.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thx for voting!
Thx for voting!
You've asked me to debate you.
You've expressed confidence that you could beat me in a debate on the 2020 election.
You've been invited to accept that very debate.
Why haven't you accepted? That debate expires tomorrow.
"everything you have said is wrong,"
Brilliant comeback
"The author... who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocrevote."
The claim I am refuting is "Ragnar does not understand how to vote in debates" I have not read the debate or Ragnar's vote and have no opinion on either. I am refuting Novice's manifestly false claim that Ragnar does not understand the voting process on DART when in fact, Ragnar more or less IS the voting process on DART.
"One thing I should mention is that I actually like Barney, as my narrow general default liking for everyone extends to him. I am saying these things to help ham because he has to understand these things. No ill will from my side, it is, I promise, out of concern"
In future, I suggest you lead with Smeagol
"This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is saying someone falls under the label of an insult therefore their conclusion is false. "
Argumentum ad hominem is "an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. "
Barney is an idiot
Barney is incompetent.... he is simply too stupid
Barney is an imbecile
Classic ad hom without any supporting argument. In context, this is bullying the voter with insults to try to get the voter to change their vote. Extremely poor conduct.
p1) People who aren't stupid can vote effectively
Easily falsified. Many intelligent people fail to vote effectively because they prioritize personal loyalties, or lack education, vote single issue, are too lazy to vote, etc.
p2) Barney is stupid
Easily falsified. A 20 minute scan of Ragnar's dominant rhetorical performances on DDO and DART demonstrate why he has been recognized as a leader in online debating for years.
c) Therefore, Barney cannot vote effectively
Formal Aristotelean violation there, bub. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. Even if your major premise were not manifestly false, it provides no information about stupid people much less how stupid people vote. Rationally, one may not infer that stupid people cannot vote effective just because non-stupid people can.
Conclusion: Novice cannot even logic much less argue much less take advice
"Just because someone created or playeda role in creating somthing, it does not follow that they automatically can (in practice) excersize such fucntion based on the criteria they may have created to a sufficent degree. For example: Thomas Jefferson the parimary writer of the declaration of independence clearly documented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" but he also had slaves."
Poor comprehension of the genetic fallacy and therefore shit description. A GENETIC FALLACY is "a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the irrelevant source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence." So if you were debating "Let's put gay people in concentration camps" or whatever, Thomas Jefferson would not be a particularly relevant source in spite of his manifest erudition and genetic fallacy might apply. However, If you are going to argue that Thomas Jefferson does not know much about the Declaration of Independence then you are going to look like an idiot.
In this instance you are claiming "Ragnar doesn't know how to vote on DART." The facts that Ragnar is the most prolific voter on the site and that Ragnar authored the rules you claim he does not know are 100% relevant to topic and utterly devastating to the case of any rational claimant. By definition, the author of any work is an expert on that work's contents.
"Either he just doesn't know or understand how to vote in debates, "
It is possible you don't know that under another username, Ragnar is not just the top voter on this site, he is also an author of some of the voting standards. He wrote the rules you are claiming he doesn't understand.
"he is simply too stupid to do it effectively, "
oof. do you not know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think ad homs in comments section are going to win you points, then you are the dummy. You got to be cool in your debate demeanor, cool in comments, classier than your opponent- that's how you win debates. Sour grapes convinces no voters.
In the late 80's, Will Shortz used to author a weekly puzzle in syndication in many arts and entertainment weekly tabloids. My local weekly carried it for a few years and offered 2 free tickets to the Ogden Theatre to the first five correct answers. I discovered that if I painted the envelope containing the puzzle answer with elaborate depictions of fishtanks, toucans, planetary systems, etc that I always won- even when I was not likely to have been one of the first five correct answers.
.
Thx for voting!
Thx for voting!
"sniping the noobs" implies that I did the targeting which is false and so your premise disproved. Bee_eee challenged me, requesting a fun debate.
Thx for voting!
Thx for voting!
Thx for voting!
Sorry to have missed your post requesting an R1. Generally, I prefer to counterargue and would have accepted your offer if I'd noticed it.