The Instigator
Mirza
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
tvellalott
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Mirza did not engage in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,458 times Debate No: 19407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Mirza

Pro

Full resolution: In the following debate, Mirza did not systematically vote for Innomen's favor.

In a particular thread, [1] several people made accusations against me that I find highly offensive. The allegations are not supported by evidence, and I will prove that I did not vote for Innomen systematically. The debate in question is: http://www.debate.org...

I will primarily explain the following points:

1: Why I gave 7 points to Bluesteel at first.

2: Why I could not vote before the last moment.

3: Why I voted honestly.

My position is very clear. I did not vote for Innomen systematically, and I had the intention to vote for whomever won. What's more, I had full knowledge that I would give a determining vote. However, the knowledge came when I started reading the debate not long before it ended. I ask the readers not to be biased, and I do not care whom you vote for as long as you vote with good intentions and honesty. I also ask you to look carefully at the evidence presented in this debate, and take the sources as being just as important as the arguments.

The first round is for acceptance, and the rest are for arguments. The last round should be used for rebuttals, and any intentional new arguments will be disregarded as irrelevant or invalid.

Reference(s):

[1] http://www.debate.org...;
tvellalott

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Mirza

Pro

The correct reference above is: http://tinyurl.com... Thanks to Chthonian for pointing that out. I'll go straight to the arguments.

C1: Not the first victim

Once I saw the thread made by Bluesteel and my name mentioned in it, I was already fully aware that it was not the first time Bluesteel had a problem with someone who voted against him, or specifically made him lose. In the debate "The News Media Is Biased Against the Positive Aspects of Gun Ownership," [1] bluesteel said the following to RoyLatham when he saw his vote: "lol, withstood endless attacks? I love you roy, but you can be a really biased judge." I'm sure we're all biased when it comes to voting against someone who arrogantly believes he wins every debate.

A year ago he had the same judgement toward voters on the site. "wow, F this site. I can't believe this many people are docking me for citing a book. Most people consider books more legitimate. It also takes significantly longer to read a book than to pull a bunch of studies off of one website. I should have cited the secondary sources on the studies Goldman cites - that I admit, in retrospect. But this is seriously ridiculous." [2] When someone has such a history of intolerance toward losing a debate, it is only logical to accept that his claims against me are doubtful.

C2: My first vote was honest and unplanned

On the Innomen/Bluesteel debate, I gave 7 points to Bluesteel without reading the debate. My intention was to counter a vote (7 full points) by the user ApostateAbe, which I thought was a votebomb. Later on, Gileandos changed his vote to 7-0 and ApostateAbe changed his to 6-1 for Innomen's favor. I responded to both of these users that I would rather not engage in discussions with them anytime again. If I had wanted Innomen to win, I'd be happy with two people responding to my votebomb-counter, since that got Innomen ahead. I disregarded that entirely.

Moreover, it is not the first time I vote to counter a votebomb without reading the debate. On RoyLatham's recent debate, [3] which ended before I knew anything about Innomen's debate as far as I'm aware, I gave Roy 7 points to counter someone's votebomb. I did not read the debate, and my vote is still counting. This proves that I do counter votebombing without the alleged intention to later change it for the sake of making someone lose on purpose. Additionally, the RFD I left was not a real one - I merely explained why I gave 7 points to Bluesteel. Innomen had nothing to do with it. I thereby also made it very clear that I would definitely read the debate and give my real vote. I kept the promise.

C3: Pain without gain

I wonder why people cannot see through the fog. Why would I want to create all this mess in order to vote for Innomen? I've never struggled to make anyone get many votes, not even myself in any of my debates. Innomen and I are good friends, but I would not want to vote for him simply because it is him. There are many instances where I discussed certain hot issues with him, and we have vast political and personal differences. There's no evidence to tell that I would go through all this mess without gaining anything good out of it.

C4: No personal issues with the debaters

There's no proper reason to believe that I would votebomb and determine the loss for Bluesteel with negative intentions. I have no issues - aside from the latest problem - with Bluesteel, and I have good proof for that. For instance, in a PM exchange with Innomen (which I will refer to quite a lot throughout the debate), I wrote a list of suggestions for the Vice President who should run with Innomen. Among some, Bluesteel was one of them. My opinion about the user Kinesis was as follows: "My pick would perhaps be Kinesis. He is active and very interesting, so I think you should see what he says. My suggestion points toward him, certainly."

I then said, "And lastly, Bluesteel. I think I'd pick him for the same reasons as Kinesis." The reasons for picking Kinesis were positive, and I gave even others later on that were more positive. Innomen later clarified that although Bluesteel would be a good pick, he already ran with another candidate. If nobody believes that I wrote this in any Personal Message conversation, either ask Innomen to witness or ask for images, which I can sort out if needed. To conclude on this point, it is exceptionally clear that I had no reason whatsoever to be biased against Bluesteel.

C5: The presidency is completely irrelevant

In the thread I linked, many a times it was mentioned either directly or indirectly that I tried to get some support for Innomen by doing all this. If anyone wonders, there are elections around the corner which will determine who should become the site's representative and moderator. Nonetheless, this is yet another completely unsupported assertion. I have no interest in becoming the Vice President, and any other role would be of no bigger significance for me personally than my already good relations with Innomen. Whether or not he wins does not change anything for me personally, and he being mature means that he'd handle a defeat well too.

C6: Personal reasons and Internet issues delayed my response

This is my main point regarding all of this. People ask why I did not vote earlier, and they create this conspiracy that I deliberately voted in the last moment in order to make Innomen win. A few clarifications have to be made.

1: The late habit

I have a history of postponing voting and debate rounds. For instance, in the debate "Construction of Islam," [4] in all rounds I had less than one, or even half (an) hour to respond to my opponent's arguments. This is just one among many such instances. If I were late responding to a debate that is about one of the most important things in my life (i.e., my religion), why doubt that I was honestly late for reading the debate and withal judging it? I ask Con to name a single good reason why I would want to do this for anyone on the site. For all I care, remove my current vote. I had the former owner, Phil, remove votes from one account from one of my old debates. Instead of acting as arrogantly and childishly as Con, Bluesteel, and Co., did, I waited for months without saying a word, and once I realized I deserved to win a debate instead of having it a tie due to votebomb, I simply contacted the site administrator and got it sorted out.

Common sense.

2: Internet issue

I had an Internet shutdown for several hours the day I voted. On the PM with Innomen, I told him: "Phew! I came home and there were issues connecting to the Internet, and I fixed it. I thought I could not make it to vote on your debate, and the 7 points would make me feel bad." The day before I said that, I also wrote: "... I gave him [bluesteel] 7 points temporarily because I thought ApostateAbe votebombed, and I clearly dislike votebombing. I'm sorry, really sorry, for the inconvenience, I didn't have a bad intention. I will fix it and he'll obviously get 7 points less, though I will see which one of you won in my opinion and if he did, I might give him 3 points or whatever, but I am not sure at all! Again, sorry for what seemed to be dumb voting." This is all fact.

-- Conclusion --

There's no doubt that the allegations against me do not hold water. They are based on blind faith and arrogance. The solution to my vote would be to kindly ask a moderator to remove it. I would be fine with that. I've proved that I had no reasons to specifically vote for Innomen other than the fact that I believed he won, and that I had no intention whatsoever to strategically vote against Bluesteel. I've never done that before, nor would I do it now. My counter-votebomb was not part of any plan either.

Resolution affirmed.

References:

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...

tvellalott

Con

tvellalott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mirza

Pro

-- Forfeit --

Con forfeited the previous round. That's a violation of conduct. Furthermore, he has made me unable to respond to any of his arguments, so I get absolutely no chance at showing how easy it is to debunk all his personal arguments against me. However, I can figure what some arguments might be, and I will address them below.

-- Rebuttals --

R1: Conduct loss

In the comments section, Bluesteel accused me of deliberately changing the resolution. It's called paraphrasing. The meaning is exactly the same, i.e., I did not vote strategically against Bluesteel / for innomen's favor (or his benefit). The difference is zero, except in the language. Do not take "full resolution" to only mean more words added to it. That's just rubbish.

R2: Logically fallacious argument

Bluesteel made an argument in the comments section that I knowingly voted in the last round because that way, he could not counter Gileandos' vote. This is a syllogism for the claim:

P1: Mirza voted in the last minute.
P2: There was not enough time to counter Gileandos' vote.
C: Therefore, Mirza voted in the last minute to prevent canceling Gileandos' vote.

This is a logical fallacy known as non-sequitur. [1] The conclusion does not follow whatsoever. Consider changing the conclusion to anything else:

P1: Mirza voted in the last minute.
P2: There was not enough time to counter Gileandos' vote.
C: Therefore, Mirza forgot that Gileandos' vote still counted.

P1: Mirza voted in the last minute.
P2: There was not enough time to counter Gileandos' vote.
C: Therefore, Mirza did not have time to realize that he should allow room for more votes.

Ad infinitum. To narrow everything that happened to "Mirza purposely did not allow a counter-vote to Gileandos' votebomb" is unreasonable and pretty much idiotic. Although in a non-sequitur argument, the conclusion could easily be true, in this case Con has to prove that it is true. Assuming he uses this claim against me, he has no evidence for the conclusion being true, and his entire argument relies on certain premises being connected to the conclusion. Clearly they are not.

-- Conclusion --

It is very apparent that I have not engaged in systematic voting of any sort in the debate in question. What might seemed to have been systematic voting does not mean that it really was. One can claim that I should not have voted at all, or that I should not have countered anything I considered a votebomb, but that is not equivalent to claiming that my 3-point-vote was systematic. I could never have predicted how a handful of other people would vote, and that way keep a 7-point vote ongoing for about three days before finally switching it to 3 points, i.e., the final vote. To think I could predict that several other people would vote in such a way that my vote would give Innomen the lead of only one point and thus make him win is utterly ridiculous.

I have no reason to systematically votebomb a debate where neither of the contestants have a problem with me (prior to the end of the debate), I have no real opinion on the resolution (nor any bit of bias toward either Pro or Con position), and finally, where I get nothing good out of it.

The resolution is affirmed - vote fairly.

References:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

tvellalott

Con

Mirza is correct.
Because he won't have a chance to respond to any of my arguments, it wouldn't be fair for me to write them.
I apologise to him for wasting his time.
His defense was quite good and I concede all points, despite being sure that he did in fact vote for innomen at the last moment with the intent of ensuring his victory.

Never mind.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
You were online most of the time prior to the deadline for posting your arguments. Good excuse.

The rules are that no arguments from third round count. But go on, I look forward to it.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
I didn't have access to a computer last night, but I only need one round to own you anyway. You can have the conduct points.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
Thanks for the time-waste.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
bluesteel, Stay out of this debate. You cowardized out of a challenge, don't try to argue through comments. TV is welcome to say that I knowingly voted because you couldn't counter Gil's vote. I'll break it apart again.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Meta-debates. I love it.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
tv, i hope you noticed that he did his usual thing of completely changing the resolution in the first round: Full resolution: In the following debate, Mirza did not systematically vote for Innomen's favor.

lol, it's not a "full resolution," it's shorter if anything. It's just a completely different resolution.

Even if you beat him that he specifically voted 10 seconds before the voting period ended, knowing I couldn't re-counter Gileandos' vote bomb (ironically, I was frequently checking the debate precisely because I thought something sketchy like that might occur), he'll just argue it wasn't "systematic" (since that by definition requires at least two examples) and that it wasn't "to win innomen's favor," neither of which you contended when you challenged him to this debate, but w/e

And you're more than welcome to ask me for evidence or anything on this topic.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Great round, Mirza!
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
....wow. i cant wait to see how this debate is going to go. lol
Posted by Chthonian 5 years ago
Chthonian
Mirza, the link that you referenced doesn't seem to work.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
MirzatvellalottTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: thett3
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
MirzatvellalottTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
MirzatvellalottTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Disappointing.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
MirzatvellalottTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmmm....Mirza gave a detailed explication to why it would be pointless for him to actually vote bomb on Bluesteel's debate....Other than lack of obvious prejudice, a note on Bluesteel's history of intolerance with members (supported by sources), as well as personal habits, Mirza's case seems solid, especially considering Con's forfeit and failure to address these points.... Hopefully, Bluesteel might be able to...
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
MirzatvellalottTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no case.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MirzatvellalottTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious. Though I still don't get why Mirza bothered countering other people's votebombs if he was planning to vote later. If you plan to vote at a different time, leave the votebombs alone. Somebody else can counter. Points for arguments and conduct obvious.