The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

Blue steel is not a good debater

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 55000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (4)




So many people say blue steel is good at debating on here. I will show why this is wrong.


I accept.

I'd like to not that Pro is making a positive statement, one which he admits is contrary to the status quo or general consensus since many people, myself included, view bluesteel as an exceptional debater. Therefore, he obviously has the burden of proof to affirm this resolution.

Debate Round No. 1


Well steel can't talk.

Steel can't type.

SO why can BLUE steel talk or type?

I've seen lots of people on here talk about BLUE steel and how it's good at debating.

That makes no sense.

So how can blue steel be a good debater if it can't type or talk?

I don't understand how anyone can defend such a position.

I hope you can give a good argument.

Thank you.


Note: I typed this argument before Pro admitted in the comment section that he was simply "confused" about a comment in the forums. I see that a concession, but I'm going to post my argument, anyway. Clearly, I have refuted his resolution in more ways than one.

My opponent's attempt at deception is quite clever, but he has already lost this debate, if only because of a flagrant conduct violation.

Allow me to quote from his Round 1 post where he introduced the resolution:

So many people say blue steel is good at debating on here. I will show why this is wrong."

Because he says that people were referring to someone named bluesteel as a good debater -- and no, the deviation between "bluesteel" and "blue steel" is irrelevant, because people don't view an inanimate object as a good debater, meaning that we contextualize this as referring to bluesteel the member -- it is clear whom he was referring to. Also, he didn't define his terms in his first round, so not only is "blue steel" left to interpretation -- meaning he cannot uphold the resolution anyway -- but so is "good."

My point is, he has lost this debate in more ways than one.

Our debate is not about "blue steel" the aninimate object, but about bluesteel whom people view as a good debater.

Pro even claims in his second argument that "I've seen lots of people on here talk about BLUE steel and how it's good at debating."

First and foremost, to uphold the resolution, Pro must provde that people claim that "blue steel" the inimate object is good at debating. Otherwise, it is clear that we are debating about bluesteel the member and the person, rather than bluesteel the inanimate object.

It is quite clear that Pro has organized this as a troll debate, intending to catch someone off guard. Unfortunately, he was no cunning enough in the way he organized the resolution to avoid inevitably the fallback from saying that "people refer to X as a good debater." Find me someone -- actually, you need to find me MULTIPLE people, since "people" is a plural noun -- who refer to an inanimate object as a "good debater." Otherwise, it is clear contextually what your resolution means.

I'd also like to point out that, even if we were debating whether "blue steel" the inanimate object is "not a good debater," Pro still could not win this debate. Why? Because he still cannot uphold the resolution. If "blue steel" the inanimate object cannot debate because it is, well, inanmiate, it isn't a debater at all. You don't look at a tree and say "that tree is not a good debater." The tree simply isn't a debater at all. Contextually, that means the tree is a bad debater, which cannot be proved.

We could even view it metaphorically, for instance. You could say that you viewed a tree whilst muttering words to yourself whilst practicing for a debate, and because you came up with such good counter-argumnts to your points, claim "wow, that stonewalling tree is a good debater."

We could even say the tree, or an animinate object such as "blue steel," is not good, not bad, not moderate or neutral. Either way, the resolution falls.

So, my point is the following:

1. Pro's resolution, when taken contextually, even for its deception, is clear to us.
2. Even if we take it fo what it's worth, it can be seen as a metaphor, in which case Pro still cannot win.
3. He cannot fulfill his burden of proof.
4. I'm about to address what he really wanted people to see this resolution about. When we transition to that, the debate is largely over.

So, now that we have cleared up that Pro's burden of proof is to prove that bluesteel -- the well-respected DDO member -- is supposedly not a good debater, I will move into my arguments as to why he cannot prove this and why it is, frankly, wholly inaccurate.

First, let's define "good" (

From Merriam-Webster:

1. Of a favorable character or tendency

So, why is bluesteel a good debater?

Well, let's look at some statistics from his profile:

1. Out of 141 debates, he has won 138 and lost only 3, meaning that his win ratio is 99.87%.
2. Given his number of wins, he is in the 99.94% percentile.
3. His ELO is 6,405, which puts him at 5th on the DDO leaderboard in terms of ELO.

There was also a debate from quite some time ago between Thett3 and 9Spaceking in which Mikal, the top rated debater on this site, said this to Thett in a PM (

"I Mikal openly acknowledge that blue and raisor are just as good at [sic] me at debating. They could possibly be better."

Well, this is a bit of a roller coaster ride, but the point is this: the resolution, no matter how you could conceivably want to interpret it -- and ambiguity in interpretation is really only harmful to Pro, who has to fulfill his burden of proof to win this debate -- has fallen.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


I thought people meant blue steel not bluesteel. I guess bluesteel is a DDO user and isn't a metal like I thought it was.

I'd like to argue that bluesteel should change his username. It's too confusing and it causes lots of confusion amongst lesser intelligent and lesser unexperienced debaters.

So bluesteel if you're reading this, please change your name to "bluesteeltheDDOuser" or something like that so that when people say youre name I'll kjnow who theyre talking about.

Also, my opponent should change his name. John Maynard Keynes is already taken by a dead guy who was into economics and spending money. So I ask that my opponent change his name to "JohnMaynardKeynestheDDOuser" so that peoploe dont get confused in the future. OR he could choose a name that makes mroe sense like "JMKTDU".

So I concede the debate but my arguments for the name changing still stand.

Vote for my opponnet.


I can't quite say that I'm going to change my name -- I don't think it's even possible to change my name, but I'd have to ask airmax about that -- but I certainly don't think bluesteel should change his. I think it's a good name, actually, but that's a separate topic.

Anyway, I thank my opponent for his gracious concession.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
"Circle boy" XD
Posted by DerKing 2 years ago
Don't you just love retards.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
Well, that ought to do it. I think I've refuted the resolution in three or four different ways.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
@circle boy, If you're going to stick around you should join the tournament also.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
I might. I started my own tournament, but no one signed up lol. That's what I wanted to focus most of my time on this summer since I have so much work, and it's much more flexible and casual -- e.g., no formal structure, no elimination, rolling sign-ups, etc.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Keynes, why don't you go to the main forum and join Mikal's tier tournament?
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago
i was reading on the forums and someone said something about bluesteel and i thought they meant blue steel.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
@circle boy, where did you even see Bluesteel called a good debator?
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago
Im sorry I wasnt trying to be a cheap shot I thought you guys meant blue steel as in a joke was a good debater.

I guess theres a misunderstanding. Should we delete this debate?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Keynes, I almost lost one of these silly debates before, because of retarded voters. Since that point I've steered clear. I garauntee you'll get idiots that think his last argument wins this for him. You might even lose.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. >So bluesteel if you're reading this, please change your name to "bluesteeltheDDOuser" or something.... No
Vote Placed by DerKing 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Concedes
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't argue at all for his point and didn't even argue the right point. His point about how names should be changed is ridiculous. If he is too unintelligent to not get that, no other users should have to suffer.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes