Blue steel is not a good debater
Debate Rounds (3)
So many people say blue steel is good at debating on here. I will show why this is wrong.
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.
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.
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" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
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 (http://www.debate.org...):
"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.
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.
Anyway, I thank my opponent for his gracious concession.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
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:||-|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.