The Instigator
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Did m93samman vote fairly ?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,066 times Debate No: 13916
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (10)

 

vardas0antras

Con

In this debate:
http://www.debate.org...
My opponent has given 3 points to ethopia619 for who "made the more convincing arguments". Now ethopia619 did an amazing job (he produced a great combination of effort and humor) and I can't wait to have other debates with him. However it was obvious that he did not make more convincing arguments and that is not simply my opinion. Many great assertions I made indeed but I will only support them in the second round due to time and some unfinished school work. Now my opponent may introduce himself and make his own arguments though I suspect this debate will revolve heavily on the validity of my arguments.

Anyhow please accept,
VAntras
m93samman

Pro

My opponent seems bent on proving that I voted unfairly. That's fine; arguments will begin in round 2. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate.

Before I begin I must say why I decided to challenge m93samman: I wanted an easy win granted my opponent may win but I doubt that hence I challenged him. I am not holding a grudge nor do I loathe your vote because I am accustomed to how votes work on this website. Wherefore this is a friendly debate despite the unfriendly title.

===My argument===
Who made the more convincing arguments? I made the more convincing arguments and here's why:

1.My opponent has provided many valid arguments as to why I am not the same person as the original Koopin.
2.According to my definition which he accepted, one does not have to be the real Koopin to be Koopin. In fact there can be many Koopins, one just has to act like Koopin.
3.I did act like Koopin and my opponent didn't argue.
4.My main and only argument was untouched though he did do a good job in proving that I'm not the same person as Koopin.

To be more simple:

Me:
" The emphasis is placed on how one acts and not what one is. Which is why I ultimately win."
Opponent:
" He now does not have his chicken with a candy cane figure. Therefore, he is not Koopin."
This doesn't even address my argument hence I made the more convincing arguments.

Thats all folks!
m93samman

Pro

Thank you.

=== Content ===
o Definitions
o Observations
o Arguments
o Conclusion
o Sources
============

o Definitions

"Did", "m93samman", and "vote" are all clear enough and don't need defining for the round.

Fair: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules [1]

So, to vote *fairly* is to vote in a fair and justified manner; to follow the definition more strictly, it is to vote in a manner that is "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception".

o Observations

1. I am not obliged to respond to my opponent's arguments; all I need to do is prove that I voted fairly. This is based on a straightforward and non-abusive interpretation and analysis of the resolution at hand.

2. My opponent can in no way prove that I have any ill-intent towards him, or any "favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception" against him. In the real world, we have never had a confrontational discussion. Epistemologically, only God (if he exists) and myself can know what my intent in voting is.

o Arguments

1. Votes can be justified regardless of whether or not someone is winning an argument. My opponent provides 4 reasons as to why he wins; in the grand scheme of things, there could be a more important argument that he lost.

2. In the debate my opponent provided, there have been 6 votes (to date). 3 have been straight 0 pointers, and 3 have been in favor of ethiopia619. If my vote was biased, my opponent is in a double bind. Either all of the votes are biased, or none of the votes are biased, which is the fact of the matter. It seems that the general consensus is that my opponent lost.

3. As regards the debate about Koopin, my opponent defined Koopin as "[A] Debate.org character". The definition implies the singularity of character; moreover, the fact that Koopin is capitalized leads any reader to believe that Koopin is a pronoun referring to a distinct and unique individual, not an adjective that can be used to describe someone who says "KfC" and happens to be a Christian.

4. Ethiopia619 made the argument above in a less eloquent fashion, but he still made it. This is sufficient to negate the resolution and to set my opponent at a loss both in that debate and in this one.

o Conclusion

This debate is honestly a waste of time. If I really voted unfairly I would have a reason for it, and even if I did, the High Supreme Court of the United States of America could not viably prove my intent because the idea is so elusive. Again, God and myself are the only two entities that could possibly know my intent. Moreover, Vardas has chosen me out of 3 voters to argue about the fairness of my vote; knucklepuk also voted the same as me, 3 points for Ethiopia619, but aside from that, Captain_Ronnie gave 5 points to Ethiopia619!

This debate is meaningless, there is no possible logical justification in Vardas' favor which is why I urge the voters to vote Pro. Thank you.

o Sources

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Con

If m93sammman doesn't mind Ill try and (permanently) adopt his style of debating. Also I'd like to ask you, from where did you get those small circles, personally I have to copy and paste them from your rounds. A response would be appreciated.
===Content===
o Definitions
o My opponents "Observations"
o My opponents "Arguments"
o My opponents "Conclusion"
o My own Conclusion
===========

o Definitions

What is a fair vote? It is to vote purely on what you see. You must exclude yourself, forget your own opinion. Like my opponent had said its to be " free from favoritism or self-interest or bias". Then interestingly he mentions "deception".
What do you mean by deception? In any case I insist that someone who doesn't vote fairly may be deceived themselves. For now I'll leave this point unfinished.

o My opponents "Observations"

1. Please elaborate

2. I can make good guesses and yes only God knows anything for certainty even your own motives.

o My opponents "Arguments"

1. Now lets assume that as true and move on to part two as my opponent intended.

2. My arguments are below this sentence.
A: Yes as I can see that at this moment there are only six votes. My opponents argument is that "It seems that the general consensus is that my opponent lost.".

It is interesting to note that before I made this comment "if I were you I would have simply not voted at all" ethopia619 gave me 3 votes for who made the more convincing arguments and even commented "Hey!" then "@ vardas0antras I vote fairly.".Obviously I don't have a source for this but if my opponent doesn't remember this happening I can try and to my displeasure contact him (seems like an awkward thing to inquire).

B: I doubt that Atheists would consider this a valid argument or anyone who has been vote bombed. What about world war two and Hitler. Most Germans thought that he was right but was he right?

C: "Reason is not a slave to consensus nor does truth dance by the tune of the virtual unitary incorrectness"
Vardas0Antras using the tone most great quotes have, silly yes, true, indeed.

3. Here my opponent gets into the debate himself. My opponent at no point had rebuked my definition "I accept your definition and debate.". My opponent does address my definition in round 2 but then I rebuke his arguments in round 3, my opponent having a chance to respond to this - does not hence my definition remains. Whatever m93samman is right about my definition or not is of no weight to this debate hence Ill ignore it. The mere fact is that according to the debate my definition emphasizes how one acts and not what one is.

4. I accidentally addressed this in Nr.3.

o My opponents "Conclusion"
The merit of this debate is contingent and it varies from person to person."there is no possible logical justification in Vardas' favor" please elaborate. Finally "Again, God and myself are the only two entities that could possibly know my intent" could you please share it with us? I was surprised when I saw your unfair vote which is why this debate is here unlike "Captain_Ronnie " who could have given Ethopia619 (Its not Ethiopia619) all seven votes and I still would ignore him.

o My own Conclusion
My opponent voted unfairly and I don't loathe him for it but I can't fathom why he did this. Perhaps you can answer. Perhaps you did vote fairly. In any case this debate does have a modicum worth even for you especially if I'm right.
m93samman

Pro

Thank you. Before I begin, the small circles that I use are actually the letter 'o', as in 'ostrich'.

We're all here to learn something, right? ;)

=== Content ===
o Observations
o Arguments
o Conclusion
============

o Observations

1. Clarification

My opponent asked for me to elaborate on this observation; basically, all it is is that, like I said, only God and myself can know my intentions. So, my opponent's arguments do not matter because he has zero knowledge on the subject, as would any other opponent to me on this debate.

2. Reiteration

Agreed. My opponent can make "guesses", but good ones, no, because clearly my opponent is wrong here. I had no mal-intent towards my opponent.

o Arguments

1. Extended

2A. Ethiopia619's vote has no bearing on the validity of any other judges' votes.

B. The majority did no believe Hitler was wrong; besides, if the situation was comparable, Hitler would be apologizing to the US and would admit he was wrong.

C. Sure. But I would argue that my independent knowledge and vote coupled with the fact that many others' independent knowledge and votes lining up would imply that I am not wrong. I voted before all of them; they simply confirmed my belief.

3. Extend. Although Ethiopia619 does accept the definition, it doesn't mean he doesn't refute it. And he does. We see in the debate a similar response to the judgement I made.

4. Okay.

o Conclusion

---> Elaboration of "there is no possible logical justification in Vardas' favor" is basically the equivalent of me saying "I win". Reduced more relevantly, though, it means "My opponent's arguments are insufficient and he can't win for that reason".

---> I am asked to "share" my intents. Well, like any other judge or voter, my intent was to express my opinion as to who won the debate. Vardas had a debate with Ste93 about the validity of the Abrahamic God when compared to Krishna and Wutan and other Hindu Gods. I voted for Vardas; clearly, I have nothing against him. I simply thought Ethiopia619 won the particular debate in question, which is why I voted for him.

Thanks for the debate, with finals coming up I'm not being as detailed as I could but I did my best. Good luck, and Merry Christmas everyone.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Con

Cheers, its nice to know that they were simply 'o's, now I feel so silly. Its good to see this debate lighten up a bit. Also if I recall correctly Mirza uses the same 'o's except they are more like oversize dots than 'o's.
===========
Content
===========
o Observations
o Arguments
o Conclusion
o My opponents conclusion
===========

o Observations

1. I doubt that any intention equals justification of an unfair vote. Thank you for clarification.

2. It doubt that an unfair vote would do any good for anyone nor do I think unfair votes should exist.

o Arguments

1.I think I have misread this but nevertheless lets move on to other points.

2.
A: If we were to say who voted fairly and who didn't it, the first person who wouldn't vote fairly would be my opponent. However my opponent did vote fairly and he did vote against himself. If there's one person who voted fairly then it ought to be my opponent because his vote may have cost the debate!

B: Lets drop this.

C: So we agree, majority doesn't make right however I find it strange what you're saying which is that these few people voted fairly because that would mean that my opponent voted unfairly. Did these voters pay more attention and were those voters as involved as my opponent?No way in hell while being attacked by chimpanzees. I think many unmentioned things follow naturally from here for example: Who paid more attention? My opponent or m93samman?

3. Where? Where? Where and again - where? My definition and my view of the definition were untouched. Hence voters please vote con. This is "the heavy, chief, big boy" point so lets examine his final round:
Here he is being polite:
"Thank you for this awesome debate! KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC"

Here my opponent argues that because I'm not using the chicken avatar I am not Koopin, the validity of this argument does not matter because my definition nor my view of what it means to be Koopin is addressed:
"My opponent stated in round 1, "My avatar is the one Koopin would use." He now does not have his chicken with a candy cane figure. Therefore, he is not Koopin."

And the same story goes for every single sentence he makes after that. Why? Why doesn't he show the error of my definition? If my opponent does not address my definition, what happens? M93samman do you know? It is accepted and by my accepted definition all his argument are null, they are invalid.

"accept the definition, it doesn't mean he doesn't refute it"
Three different though similar arguments I could make:
a. If he accepts the definition then his refutation doesn't matter.
b. He tries to refute my definition in Round 2 but then I refute his rebut in round 3. He having a chance doesn't even mention my rebuke. Hence he accepts it.
c. According to you he accepts my definition so whats the problem? I win if he accepts my definition... You said he accepted my definition and if two plus two equals four then I win.

4. Okay indeed.

o Conclusion

I win this debate and I won the previous debate hence I urge everybody to vote for me though it will be an ungainly experience.

o My opponents conclusion

"---> I am asked to "share" my intents"
I have doubts but ultimately I do believe that you honestly thought I lost although I didn't

The Finals:
Good luck and since your older and probably an awesome student...Uhm any tips or websites you could recommend?

Anyhow Vote Con
with
A Merry Christmas Cheer !!!

Thank you for the effort,
VAntras
m93samman

Pro

Thanks.

Since this is the last round, I'm just gonna say two things, and then send this into the voting period.

First: My opponent should check again. Ethiopia619 actually didn't vote. He gave a straight "tied" vote the whole way.

Second: This is a quote from Ethiopia619's round 2. "Note: The topic states, "I am Koopin" not "I am A Koopin." Therefore, you have to state you are Koopin, the debate.org character that has a 90.72% win ratio. Therefore, many of you arguments are useless." --> Clearly, he made the same argument I did, only not as eloquently.

My opponent has failed to satisfy his burden, my vote *was* in face fair, and the readers should vote PRO.

Happy Holidays,

-m93samman
Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Vardas, you always say the same thing. I've learned that. This was your response to the definition argument:

"To respond to your note, I have to say that I am Koopin when one applies my definition. Koopin is a character which does certain things. So when I say that I am Koopin, I mean that I am a character which does certain things. The emphasis is placed on how one acts and not what one is. Which is why I ultimately win."

That only further negates the resolution! Why? Because you continued to refer to Koopin as *A* character! If you defined Koopin to be a set of *characteristics* as opposed to *a* *character* you would've won. I understand how debate works; you acting in this snobbish, holier-than-thou attitude doesn't make you any more correct. All it really does is make you less respectable, less desirable to debate with, and (like ZackJarvis said) seemingly more whiney.

If you really think this site is like YouTube, that's fine. We here on DDO represent some of the most intelligent segments of the population in the US and the world with internet access, and I challenge you to find someone as philosophically brilliant as J.Kenyon or simply as intelligent and well rounded as theLwerd. Or better yet, a Muslim like Mirza or myself who spends their time seriously debating on YouTube.

Aside from that, I have nothing to say but good luck in whatever you do, although I really don't care anymore.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"Sometimes we have to let those things go. Regardless of whether votes were fair or not, we have to live and let live sometimes." Indeed I should have left a long time ago... This website is no better than youtube, it just appeared to be that way and because I'm addicted to oafs, here is my response to m93samman and SoSilly:
SoSilly:
Indeed because no one reads the debate even if they skim, they already have chosen who they'll vote for. Which results in me repeating myself in the comment section, m93 is no different make no mistake.
M93:
Your example involves me ignoring the other guy's arguments. However in the debate it was me who's argument concerning definition was ignored, valid or not.
Posted by ZackJarvis 6 years ago
ZackJarvis
I have to say from the get go this just seemed like a silly debate. If you have a problem with the way someone voted that is fine, but keep it between the two of you. Making a whole new debate on it is silly for multiple reasons.

1: You are presenting yourself as whiney from the get go making a debate about votes that caused you to lose.

2: You are requiring the voters to look back at that debate, read it, read the votes, read the comments, come back to this debate, read these arguments, and then vote. Sorry, but that is requiring a bit much from voters and they 9 times out of 10 wont bother going to all of that work.

3: What happened in that debate happened. Sometimes we have to let those things go. Regardless of whether votes were fair or not, we have to live and let live sometimes.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Vardas: just because you respond, doesn't mean you win. If I say "cigarettes are bad because they cause lung cancer" and you respond with "well, cigarettes taste good so they aren't that bad" and then I dropped that argument, you wouldn't have won.
Posted by SoSilly 6 years ago
SoSilly
It was obvious vardas0antras would lose from the start.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"and besides, quite honestly the "Koopin vs A Koopin" is a valid argument."
Valid or not I gave my rebuke to which my opponent did not responded hence I win. Anyhow it seems this will be my last debate for a while...
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I know what if feels like, I've had a couple debates where people voted against me even when my opponent dropped several key points. But we just have to deal with it. And besides, quite honestly the "Koopin vs A Koopin" is a valid argument.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Tough one...
Posted by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
RFD: This is a ridiculous debate XD
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
But music makes it all okay :)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 6 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ZackJarvis 6 years ago
ZackJarvis
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Saint.James 6 years ago
Saint.James
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03