The Instigator
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,709 times Debate No: 19491
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (4)

 

bluesteel

Pro

Mirza challenged me to this topic and calls me a coward for refusing to accept, so here we go. He is also attacking my character in his debate with tvellalot so he owes me the opportunity to defend myself directly, since he refuses to let me post comments on that particular debate.

Rules:

Mirza will post his defense in round 1 (he can copy/paste from his debate with tvellalot if he likes). No new arguments in the last round.

Strategic - pertaining to or marked by strategy (Random House).

Strategy - a plan or method for achieving a specific goal (Random House).

The goal in this case was to have innomen win.

== My case ==

Mirza initially voted all 7 points to me on my debate to counter a perceived vote bomb from ApostateAbe. Then Gileandos countered Mirza's counter vote bomb with 7 points to innomen. It was later revealed that ApostateAbe, who hates me for "gish galloping" on our debate about Jesus, had in fact intended to give all 7 points to innomen "legitimately" and had "not vote bombed."

Thus, Mirza's and Gileandos' votes were cancelling each other out. Mirza also had posted as his "RFD" that his counter-vote bomb was temporary until he actually read the debate and voted. I checked the debate frequently so that when Mirza finally did vote, I could either counter Gileandos' vote myself or ask Gileandos to correct his vote. It didn't matter, however, since I was far enough ahead of innomen that even Mirza's un-countering wouldn't have resulted in innomen winning.

Then two hours before the voting period ended, Zetsubou voted 3 points to innomen. This meant Mirza's vote would have made a difference. At this point, I frequently checked the debate to make sure nothing was remiss because I had had MANY problems with some of the people voting for innomen and this debate was causing me a great deal of frustration. Ultimately, Mirza voted SO close to when the voting period ended that I had no chance to counter Gileandos' vote bomb, even though I was checking frequently. Mirza voted so close to when the voting period ended that he had no chance to leave a full RFD in the comments section, even though he said he would. His RFD seems extremely hurried, if you read it.

It also seems unlikely that Mirza had enough time to read the debate in full, if he voted a minute before the voting period ended. He either a) read the debate beforehand and thus should have voted a long time ago or b) if you believe he was having "computer issues," he must have logged on without enough time to actually read the entire debate, in full, so his vote was by definition a vote bomb and was strategic.

Mirza admits to knowing that his vote would result in innomen winning (because of Gileandos' un-counter-able vote bomb). Mirza: "I knew my vote would determine the outcome." http://www.debate.org...

Mirza also admits to open contempt towards me as a motivation for his voting behavior. He says that he pictured my face when I won the debate and couldn't bear the thought of my elation at winning. This is the reason he voted.

Mirza: "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray."

This sounds like a 100% admission of guilt.

I look forward to Mirza's response.
Mirza

Con

I agree with the definitions above. I'd like to add that in order for my vote to have been strategic, I must've intended it to be that way. Otherwise every complex coincidence can seem strategic. I will argue that I had absolutely no intention to make Innomen win, and that there is zero evidence for that.

Because I have to do many rebuttals in this debate, consider reading my other debate on this issue to see my full reasons for not being able to vote early on the day, and how my PM exchange with Innomen proves that I had no bias against Bluesteel, nor any intention to vote against him merely for the purpose of making Innomen win. See: http://www.debate.org...


-- Rebuttals --

R1: Pro misinterprets everything

In his first sentence, Pro claims that I called him a coward for not accepting my earlier debate challenge. That's not true. I'd call him a liar if anything, but I think he does believe in all the nonsense he utters. Nonetheless, what I said was that he cowered from the debate challenge. Is that an attack on his character? Not at all. Consider the following statement: "Josh told one lie in his life, about nine years ago. Therefore, Josh is a liar." This apparently is not very sound. The act of doing something does not mean it is part of your personality. Pro cowering from a debate challenge does not mean he's a coward.

Additionally, Pro claims that I 'attacked his character' in my other debate of same sort. The reason why I have two same debates in a row is because my character was attacked. To claim that I was not the first victim of Bluesteel's rage because I voted against him is a fact. To claim that Bluesteel could have resolved this issue in an easier, more mature, and less arrogant way is a fact. Notice how Pro's entire case consists of attacking me with lies. Nowhere does he defend himself, yet he claimed the right to do so in this debate. Additionally, he claims that I did not allow him to post comments on my other debate. Everyone can go read the comments and see for themselves whether I claimed that Bluesteel should not post arguments in the comments section rather than just comment on the debate. I'll get back to Pro's exceptional ability at misinterpretation.

R2: No RFD left

Pro is right in that I did not leave an elaborated RFD in the comments section, contrary to what I said in the voting section. However, this is merely due to the fact that Pro and a handful of his supporters took all my focus away from the debate, and I saw no point in writing an RFD when I had a thread against me where people came with almost nothing but personal attacks. Put yourself in my shoes. Would you spend time on writing an RFD rather than explaining that your vote was honest and non-strategic? I can leave an RFD anytime if needed (in fact, I did in a PM to Innomen to explain why I think he won by a very little shot), but that's completely unnecessary. I reserve the right to prioritize.

R3: My counter-votebomb

Pro is once again right in that I attempted to counter what I considered to be a blatant votebomb against Bluesteel himself. I voted on another debate the same way, quite some time before I gained interest in Bluesteel's debate against Innomen. I thought a 7-0 vote for Innomen was unfair, and I got the user who gave that vote to give 1 point less, resulting in 6-1 to Innomen.

Unfortunately, what happened was that the user Gileandos countered my vote, which itself was a counter to another vote! I told both Gileandos and ApostateAbe (to whom I gave the counter-vote) that I would rather not engage in any further discussions with them. I would not want to say this to anyone in order for Innomen (or anyone else, including myself) to win a debate. Furthermore, what happened was that during the time I judged the debate, I completely forgot that Gileandos did not change his 7-0 vote to Innomen, meaning that my vote should technically have remained the same. But, since I said I would eventually come back and vote for real, I kept the promise, and I had no bad intentions. Gileandos' vote was out of my head.

R4: Highly improbable engineering

Bluesteel often claimed that I engineered the voting, which resulted in Innomen's victory. I think this is completely ridiculous. To repeat what I said in my other debate: "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."

R5: Reading debate in full

Pro claims that it is unlikely that I had enough time to read the debate in full. He claimed either of the following are true: a) I read the debate beforehand and thus should have voted a long time ago, or b) I must have logged on without enough time to read the entire debate fully, thus my vote was by definition a votebomb and strategic.

Pro is entirely mistaken. Let's look at the first option. Could I have read the debate earlier, since I had enough time to vote just about in the last minute? I skimmed a few points, but that's irrelevant. As for the second option, did I log so late that I could not read the debate entirely?

Neither of these are sound. Why does Pro even remotely think that you vote right after you read a debate? What about re-reading a few points you were confused about? What about considering whose arguments fit best to the resolution? Pro thinks that I simply read the debate all until the last minute, and thus gave a vote. That's nonsensical. Why not say that I read the debate and had 5-10 minutes to judge properly? And, because it happened that I voted in the last minute tells nothing about strategic work. As I said, Gileandos' vote was out of my mind, and I voted because I simply kept my promise.

R6: Knowing the winner beforehand

"Mirza admits to knowing that his vote would result in innomen winning (because of Gileandos' un-counter-able vote bomb). Mirza: 'I knew my vote would determine the outcome.'"

Here, Pro yet again misinterprets what I said. It is completely true that I knew my vote would determine the outcome. The outcome I am speaking of was not that Innomen would win (during my judgement of the debate), but that my vote would be a determining factor in who - of any of the debaters - would win. I knew because the score was 39-48, and if I voted on Innomen, it would be 42-41 (as it was in the end), but if I voted on Bluesteel, he'd have 44.

In other words, I did not know, prior to judging the debate, that my vote would result in Innomen winning, but that I could determine which of the debaters would win, since there was little time left for others to vote.

R7: Admission of guilt

Pro claimed that I "pictured his face when he won and couldn't bear the thought." That's rubbish. There is no way one can even paraphrase my words to mean what Bluesteel said. I urge Pro to visit http://www.english4today.com... and ask what my sentence means.

Nonetheless, what I meant with Bluesteel celebrating his win was that if he were in Innomen's shoes, and the exact same thing happened to Innomen, then I doubt Pro would act negatively in any way in order to remove an "unjustified" vote for himself. In order words, I think he raged because he lost, not because he deemed my vote specially unfair/strategic.

100% admission of guilt? I think not.

Debate Round No. 1
bluesteel

Pro

Mirza urges readers to apply the arguments from his other debate to this one. DO NOT DO THIS. He can't save character space be referencing 8,000 characters of arguments in another debate, just like I can't post my response on a blog and provide the hyperlink in order to save characters. I'll only debate what he posts in this debate.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) I misinterpret everything?

This is just hyperbole (and ad hominem) from my opponent.

I admit that I blew innomen's involvement in this affair way out of proportion. I have personally apologized to innomen, and I am prosecuting the izbo case as a favor to him. He and I have reconciled.

Mirza claims I have "attacked" other people. I would have mirza bring formal charges against me if he wants me to refute these allegations.

But my character is not at issue here. As a judge on this debate, it doesn't matter if you dislike me or if you love Mirza. At the end of the day, regardless of your feelings towards either of us, you can still agree that he engaged in strategic voting behavior on my debate. All mirza's character attacks do is urge judge bias: he's asking you to ignore his behavior if you supposedly don't like mine.

R2) No RFD Left

Mirza admits here that he voted at the last possible second. That's really the only takeaway that matters.

I was using the lack of an RFD to show that Mirza had literally no time between when he left his vote and when I was notified by DDO that I'd lost (a debate I had been leading by 9 points when I had last checked 3 minutes earlier). I posted my complaints about Mirza in the forums as soon as being notified. Thus, mirza had "no time" to leave an RFD because there WAS "no time" between when he voted and when I was notified I'd lost the debate.

R3) Mirza "forgot" about Gileandos' vote

Most people lie when they are caught doing something they shouldn't have done; the most obvious lie for Mirza to use in his defense is, of course, that he forgot about Gileandos' vote. So I'm not surprised that Mirza would use this tactic, and I don't begrudge it to him since I see it done in criminal trials all the time.

However, this simply does not hold water. Mirza claims he went OUT OF HIS WAY to contact both Gileandos and ApostateAbe. He claims that he was so upset by their behavior that he wanted to block both users. And yet suddenly he forgets all the drama surrounding this debate?

Whenever someone counter-vote bombs, he or she should obviously always check that the original vote bomb was removed before changing their votes. That is the standard operating procedure and the only ethical course of action. If Mirza did check before re-voting, then he KNEW Gileandos was still vote-bombing me. If he DID NOT check, then he should have ASSUMED that there was still a vote-bomb against me. He admits he still knew he was "counter-votebombing." What did he think he was countering?

When mirza went to vote a second time, the website would have displayed his previous vote and his previous RFD, which read: "counter-vote bombing." {I don't know if any of you have tried to change your votes, but try it – you *can't* miss your previous RFD; you'd literally have to delete your previous RFD in order to write a new one, which Mirza did} It's impossible to believe that Mirza didn't see his RFD and previous vote, both of which would have told him that he was countering someone. If he "forgot" who he was countering, he would have checked. If Mirza checked his original vote on the "votes" tab before re-voting to see WHY he'd written "counter-vote bombing", he would have seen Gildeanos' vote bomb since it was right above Mirza's original vote. It was impossible to miss.

Mirza tries to portray his vote as a determined last-minute rush to vote on the debate. However, his decision of when to vote was clearly very calculated. When he voted, I checked his activity log, and he was online for hours before he voted. He started arguing against i-am-panda on innomen's political debate an hour and a half before voting. If Mirza had computer trouble and suddenly rushed to some computer just to vote on this debate, you wouldn't have seen him log onto DDO and take his leisurely time doing other things.

It's hard to believe that Mirza was paying SO MUCH attention to the debate that he knew EXACTLY when the voting period ended (there's no notifications for when a debate is an hour from finishing). Mirza must have been checking in constantly to know this. It's hard to believe he was following the debate to such an extent as to know the exact hour it ended but forgot MAJOR details about why his 7 points had been cast in my favor in the first place.

R4) Highly improbable engineering

First of all, I don't need to prove that Mirza engineered any vote but his own or that he premeditated this strategy three days in advance. In criminal law, we look at whether someone had motive and opportunity to commit a crime. The opportunity arose two hours before the voting period was about to end, when Zetsubou voted 5 points to innomen, lowering my lead from 14 points to 9 points. At this point, Mirza's 10-point swing could actually affect the outcome of the debate. It's obvious why Mirza didn't bother changing his vote before that point: because even if he gave 5 points to innomen (resulting in a 12 point swing towards innomen), I would have still been winning by two points. For a 14-point swing, Mirza would have had to vote innomen all seven points, and he obviously calculated that his strategic voting behavior would be FAR too obvious in that case. And without Zetsubou's vote, even Mirza vote bombing 7 points to innomen would have only resulted in a tie. Mirza carefully bided his time until his vote became not only decisive, but also un-counter-able.

Zetsubou's late vote created the opportunity; now let's discuss motive. The motive should be clear both from this debate and Mirza's comments that I quoted from the forums: Mirza dislikes me a great deal. He also wanted to help innomen, who is a close friend and confidant of Mirza's, albeit doing so in a completely misguided way. But even innomen thinks mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior. Innomen said to me, in an apology about mirza's behavior, "i think he was just trying to help me in his own way, but didn't realize the turmoil he was going to create."

R5) Did not read the debate?

This was a pretty big double bind: either mirza was so rushed that he did not LEGITIMATELY have time to read the debate (and voted without reading, which is a vote bomb) OR he finished reading the debate days earlier and bided his time to vote at a more strategic opportunity.

Mirza asks if people typically vote right after they read a debate. Typically they do, so as not to forget the arguments. I *never* read a debate in full and then wait two days to vote.

Mirza says, "Why not say that I read the debate and had 5-10 minutes to judge properly?" Any psychologist would have a FIELD DAY with this statement. When someone is lying but uncomfortable doing so, they will often ask hypothetical questions rather than making explicit statements. [1] Someone telling the truth would say, "I finished reading the debate with 5 to 10 minutes left, pondered my decision for 8 to 9 minutes, then voted." A liar would say, "well, it's reasonable to think that I had 5 to 10 minutes to ponder the debate before voting."

Notably, Mirza's short RFD (the one attached to his vote) does not mention a single argument that either I or innomen made in the debate. It's two lines of "fluff," with Mirza equivocating on the meaning of certain words in the resolution. It's precisely the sort of RFD you'd expect from someone who didn't read the debate but needed to write something in a hurry.

R6) Knowing his vote would be "decisive"

Every argument Mirza makes here assumes that you believe that he "forgot" he was countering a vote bomb. It should have been patently obvious, however, given that Mirza admits he saw the score was "39-48" prior to voting. Any sane person would question why his vote could result in such a large point swing and would check why he had counter-vote bombed in the first place. Gileandos' vote bomb was IMMEDIATELY above Mirza's old vote.

It's not as if Mirza had so many things going on that he could get confused. Prior to this incident, he hadn't debated on this site for 4 months. His previous vote had been a week earlier, but that was only to counter a vote bomb against RoyLatham. Mirza rarely posted to the forums anymore, until this incident, which is why many of you likely don't know him. The ONLY thing he was doing on DDO at this time was voting on my debate with innomen. It's really hard to believe that a big detail, like why his counter-vote bomb was still there, would just "slip his mind."

R7) Admission of guilt

Mirza contemptuously posts a link to an English grammar forum. He provides no other real response. His words speak for themselves, "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray." Sarcasm. Contempt. Hatred. Joy at my misery. Misery at the thought of my joy. This statement alone is a 100% admission of guilt. Vote pro.

There is absolutely no way that you could construe the above quote to mean "innomen would not react this way if he lost," as Mirza suggests.

[1] Mark Bouton, How to Spot Lies Like the FBI
Mirza

Con

Bluesteel thinks I used my arguments from my earlier debate to save space. That's untrue. I quoted a large portion that I want Pro to look at. What I do not wish to quote are facts that have already been acknowledged by Pro, such as that I had Internet issues and thus could not log on very early to read and judge the debate.

-- Rebuttals --

R1: Misinterpretation

It is a statement that is true to an extent. Call it a hyperbole. However, there's no ad hominem - Bluesteel tries to get the conduct vote by talking gibberish. Is it disrespectful to state that my opponent misinterprets what I am saying?

"Mirza claims I have "attacked" other people. I would have mirza bring formal charges against me if he wants me to refute these allegations."

--> Mirza claimed no such thing in any of these two debates. I think Bluesteel should stop putting words into my mouth that I never uttered. I said that he showed intolerance toward people who voted against him in his other debates. Read closely: "wow, F this site. I can't believe this many people are docking me for citing a book." [1] Notice how Bluesteel did not refute my point about him misinterpreting what I said to him. Nor did he refute my point that I never told him not to comment on my earlier debate.

R2: No RFD

Of course I admit I voted in the last minute. I never claimed otherwise, so that's a moot point. Moving on, Bluesteel continues babbling about me not leaving an RFD. I said I would leave one in the comments section, but it is true that I have not done it. The reason why is as I said: I was distracted by Pro and his supporters attacking me constantly in a hate thread. I prioritized defending myself over writing an RFD. Moreover, not leaving an elaborated RFD in voting section is completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with me having time to write it.

R3: Forgot Gileandos' vote

Bluesteel claimed that it was an ad hominem to tell him that he misinterprets what I say. He claims that I lie. Pro, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. Nonetheless, Pro will have a hard time proving that I am lying. I genuinely believe that I forgot about Gileandos' vote.

"And yet suddenly he forgets all the drama surrounding this debate?"

--> Bluesteel thinks I forgot the drama that was going on. Not at all. I never said I forgot about ApostateAbe's vote, which was the one I countered. He gave 1 point less to Innomen afterwards. The vote I forgot about was Gileandos' vote, which was supposedly a counter-vote to my own counter-vote. In other words, I achieved something good for Bluesteel by getting someone to give 1 point less to Innomen. However, I forgot that this did not turn out good because of what Gileandos did. It was a mistake of mine not to realize that my 7 point vote to Bluesteel should have remained, but what I had in mind was that a) ApostateAbe gave fewer points to Innomen (rather than 7-0), and b) I promised to give my real vote.

"If Mirza did check before re-voting, then he KNEW Gileandos was still vote-bombing me. (...) What did he think he was countering?"

--> I was countering ApostateAbe's vote, not Gileandos vote. I definitely remembered that ApostateAbe gave 1 point less to Innomen due to my vote, which was a success, but I had not the least bit of remembrance about Gileandos' vote countering mine, thus making my 3 point vote to Innomen a mistake (not due to judging, but due to Gileandos). Therefore, my RFD on the counter-votebomb had nothing to do with Gileandos, but ApostateAbe.

"[H]e would have seen Gileandos' vote bomb since it was right above Mirza's original vote. It was impossible to miss."

--> How would I have seen it if I read the RFD on the front page of the debate? My RFD was not a reference to Gileandos' vote - it was to ApostateAbe's vote. I forgot that Gileandos 'countered' my 7-point vote for Bluesteel, partially because I did not look at the votes when I was about to finally judge the debate.

"Mirza tries to portray his vote as a determined last-minute rush to vote on the debate. However, his decision of when to vote was clearly very calculated."

--> Because I voted in the last minute, Bluesteel thinks that is very unique. Not at all. In my debate "Construction of Islam," which is a perfect example to use here because the topic was very important to me, I had very little time to respond to my opponent's arguments, mostly less than one hour. Bluesteel's debate was nothing special in that I voted right at the end.

"If Mirza had computer trouble and suddenly rushed to some computer just to vote on this debate"

--> Where did I claim that I rushed just to vote on the debate? I claimed that I was frustrated at not being able to vote and keep my promise. My intention was to read the debate and judge it. Once my computer got Internet, I did not rush reading the debate immediately. I simply wanted to make sure I could give fair judgement to the debate. Once I started reading the debate, not too long before it ended, I had no intention to vote for Innomen, nor did I intend to make my late voting strategic. It happened in many of my own debates that I read and replied to the arguments of my opponents' very late (just about the end), which is very clear evidence that I did not vote strategically for Innomen.

Lastly, I did not pay "SO MUCH" attention to the debate. A PM with Innomen reminded me of the debate, and my hour-long Internet connection issue made me remember that I was frustrated at not being able to make it on time to vote.

R4: Highly improbable engineering

First, Zetsubou voted four hours before the debate ended, not two. By that time I had no way of telling I'd have the 'perfect opportunity' to vote strategically. Second, Zetsubou's voting was totally out of anything I could predict for the debate, and in two-three days I would never have made Innomen win by one vote this way. I want Pro to explain what he evens means by strategy. He seems to just babble endlessly about how I voted strategically, yet his claims are highly confusing. Was my 7-point vote to Bluesteel strategic? Was my vote strategic because Zetsubou created a good opportunity for me? At what point did I plan all this?

R5: Reading the debate

Bluesteel makes nonsensical claims about me not having read the debate properly. I already explained very clearly that I read the debate and spent some time judging it, hence the last-minute vote did not come right after I read the debate, but after I re-read certain points and put some thought into who won overall.

"I *never* read a debate in full and then wait two days to vote."

--> And I never claimed that I read the debate in full before the day/hour I voted.

"When someone is lying but uncomfortable doing so, they will often ask hypothetical questions rather than making explicit statements."

--> This entire debate is filled with explicit statements. I cannot believe Bluesteel thinks I am asking a hypothetical question. It's not hypothetical, it's rhetorical. If it were hypothetical, I would not have said that I did spend time judging the debate. That's explicit.

Pro makes another attack on my RFD, saying it was "from someone in rush." I already explained why I did not leave an RFD in comments.

R6: Admission of guilt

Pro claims I had no real response to his claim about me admitting to being guilty of deliberately voting against him (with bad intentions). What a bold-faced lie. Read what I wrote. Moreover, the user Danielle is notably the one I had most tensions with. Yet, I cannot recall where I voted in any of her debates against her even once. But Bluesteel never had a problem with me, and he mentions that I hate him and want to enjoy him being in misery. Such nonsense. In my PM with Innomen I told that Kinesis would be a good pick for VP for being eloquent, interesting, etc. Then I said, "And lastly, Bluesteel. I think I'd pick him for the same reasons as Kinesis."

Pro's evidence is blind faith.

Reference:

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bluesteel

Pro

No new arguments in the last round. Don't let Mirza bring up new defenses since I can't refute them.

The burden of proof in this debate is merely a preponderance of the evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you believe that it's more likely than not that Mirza's voting behavior was strategic, then vote Pro.

== Plausibility ==

The simplest and most plausible explanation is almost always the best one. Do you believe that:

A) Mirza logged onto DDO, saw an opportunity to sway the outcome of a closely contested debate in favor of his closest friend on DDO, and waited until LITERALLY the last second to vote so I could not counter Gileandos's vote bomb, or

B) Mirza was having internet problems. Innomen contacted Mirza to vote. Mirza felt bad for not voting. When his internet was fixed, he immediately logged onto DDO with great urgency since he KNEW the voting period was about to end. He was following the debate closely enough to remember the exact hour the voting period ended, but not quite closely enough to remember major details about who vote-bombed whom. But his urgency at logging into DDO then suddenly dissipated. He took his leisurely time browsing and posting in the forums, then finally started reading the debate. He finished reading with plenty of time left, but decided "I'm going to wait until there's only 30 seconds left before voting – that would be fun." He'd also forgotten Gileando's vote bomb. I mean, he knew he was countering someone, he thought it was ApostateAbe, but he now knew ApostateAbe's vote bomb was "legitimate." Rather than checking his previous vote on the vote tab, he just stared at the computer screen for 10 minutes, waiting for the timer to run out so he could change his vote. I mean, he definitely didn't remember Gileandos' vote bomb, right? Even though he got into verbal arguments with BOTH him and ApostateAbe in the comments section, contacted both of them personally, and then ended up blocking them both. But ApostateAbe was inherently more memorable than Gileandos. So Mirza's defense was, "Oops, sorry bluesteel, my bad, I seriously forgot about Gileandos… " But then, instead of apologizing for forgetting about Gileandos, a legitimate mistake which could have easily resolved this issue WEEKS ago, Mirza instead says to me, "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray."

Usually, when an "alibi" SUDDENLY appears well after a crime was committed, it's fake. Forgetting about Gileandos' vote-bomb is Mirza's strongest defense. In fact, it's the only defense he needs. Yet, MOST TELLING, he does not mention this defense even ONCE in his debate with tvellalot on the same issue. That's because this "excuse" hadn't occurred to Mirza yet.

Had Mirza voted 5 minutes earlier, I could have countered Gileandos' vote bomb and won. It was clear from my interactions with Zetsubou a few hours earlier that I was both online and checking the debate frequently enough that I would counter Gileandos' vote if Mirza voted at any time but at the exact last second. His motive for waiting was clear. Voting with only *30 seconds left* would be far too much of a coincidence in this case.

So which of the above explanations do you find most plausible and simple: A or B?

Occum's Razor: the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Ad Hominem attacks on bluesteel

Mirza concedes these are irrelevant to this debate.

To put the quote Mirza references in context: Danielle complained in that debate that I cited a book I own because she couldn't read it to verify its claims. I had just joined the site and got upset specifically with Mirza's RFD for the sources point: "bluesteel cites a book."

R2) No RFD

I still have significant doubts that Mirza read the debate. As per the settings on the debate, Mirza is required to leave an RFD to vote. His RFD was: "The resolution itself is specific, but not detailed enough. What is the meaning of "recognize" and what are the effects thereof?" As I said before, this is just "fluff," equivocating on the meaning of the resolution. Nowhere in Mirza's RFD does he mention a single argument that either side made. It's impossible to verify that he even read the debate.

R3) Forgot about Gileandos?

I also knew Mirza would take this tactic next – of claiming he remembered ApostateAbe's vote but not Gileandos'. Again, this is the most obvious tactic for him to take at this point. It still makes no sense, however, since Mirza claims in Round 1 that ON MY BEHALF, he contacted both Gileandos and ApostateAbe to get them to change their vote bombs. Why was one so memorable and the other was not?

Mirza claims in Round 1 that he was led to believe that ApostateAbe's vote bomb was legitimate (this communication occurred three days before the voting period ended). If this is true, Mirza would have switched his counter-vote bomb to zero points if he truly was led to believe that his counter-vote bomb was unfair (because ApostateAbe "legitimately" intended to give all 7 points to innomen). Given that Mirza did not change his vote to zero points at this time, either he INTENDED to vote bomb in MY favor OR he knew his vote was still necessary to counter Gileandos.

It's also hard to believe that Mirza forgot Gileandos' vote bomb because it led to an argument between Mirza and Gileandos in the comments section, which ends with Mirza saying, "Gileandos, I'm now sure never to engage in a discussion with you." According to further comments, it appears Mirza then blocked Gileandos.

It really makes no sense that Mirza was so caught up with the debate that he knew the exact hour it ended, but didn't remember his verbal altercation with Gileandos or why his own counter-vote bomb was still there.

Mirza says, "I genuinely believe that I forgot about Gileandos' vote." Again, psychologists would have a field day with this. Why would you disbelieve yourself? Someone telling the truth would say, "I genuinely forgot about Gileandos's vote," not "well, I really do *think* that I forgot about Gileando's vote." The latter is distancing language, which seeks to distance the liars from the lie itself, as if they are not the ones saying the lie, but are merely the ones choosing to "believe" it. People see it as far more acceptable to "believe" a lie than to directly say one.

Lastly, this doesn't even matter if you, as the judge, believe ApostateAbe was still a vote bomber and Mirza merely created a rationalization (for unvoting) that ApostateAbe's vote was "legitimate." ApostateAbe has shown open contempt towards me on my Jesus debate with him and congratulated Mirza on his strategic voting behavior on my debate with innomen after it led to my loss (in the comments section).

R4) Improbable?

Mirza, I contend that you didn't bother taking action on the debate earlier because it wouldn't have affected the outcome. I'd still be winning, and I'd have been able to counter Gileandos' vote bomb myself. I think you logged on with hours to spare, saw that Zetsubou had created an opportunity for you to really mess with me and to give innomen the win, and you took that opportunity.

We know you had the opportunity. For the motive, I don't care to dig back a year through the forums to find all the times you insulted me while we were debating various things. Your admission of guilt says it all.

In addition, Mirza DROPS the argument that his motive was to help innomen, his closest friend on the site. I provided a quote from innomen where innomen says that he believed Mirza engaged in strategic voting in a misguided attempt to help a friend. This is motive enough. Innomen has said that Mirza routinely confides in innomen about his problems. Mirza's vote was clearly some messed up form of reciprocation to innomen for providing a sympathetic ear.

R5) Reading the debate

I already showed that Mirza can't prove he did, in fact, read the debate. If he was willing to be dishonest about un-counter-vote-bombing, I don't see why he'd bother to be honest about reading the debate.

R6) Admission of guilt

Just because Mirza recommended me for a cabinet position doesn't mean he personally likes me. Regardless, it doesn't answer this statement that Mirza made:

"I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray."

Let's analyze this statement. Mirza knew his vote was a counter-bomb. He knew I'd be happy about winning by having a vote-bomb being countered. His sarcasm ("hurray") shows that he wasn't happy at the thought of me winning. Thus, he removed his counter-bomb with 30 seconds left on the clock.

Again, this statement was a 100% admission of guilt from Mirza. There is truth in anger. I'm glad he got angry and at least told the truth in the forums immediately after the incident.

Mirza waited to vote until his vote was both decisive and un-counter-able. That was pretty "strategic." Vote Pro.

I ask you one last time to consider why an innocent person would say: "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray."
Mirza

Con

Pro has neglected several accusations he made against me, and he has continuously not only misinterpreted my case, but in fact also misrepresented it. Pro has also dropped several arguments.

  1. Claims I called him a coward and attacked his character. He did not respond to my rebuttal.
  2. Claims he wanted to use this debate to defend himself; not even one word was dedicated to his defense. On the contrary, he attacked my character in various ways.
  3. Claims I 'conceded' that ad hominems do not count. This is not true. If telling him that he misinterprets what I say is an ad hominem, then he calling me a liar means he loses more conduct since that is a bigger accusation. That is not conceding to anything.
  4. Accuses me of insulting him many months ago, but he does not want to look for evidence. I've never had any big argument with him, let alone having insulted him. This is another lie.


These are a few examples of how highly absurd and inconsistent Pro's case is. I will get more into this.

-- Rebuttals --

R1: Plausibility

Pro tries to use the Occam's Razor explanation of my argument. He absurdly claims that my defense is the most complex explanation. I can easily make a case for all his attacks that will seem far more complex, but that's unnecessary. Take this into consideration: he spent hours writing random accusations in the thread he linked, thousands of words in this debate, all to prove that I strategically voted for Innomen in his debate. Yet he summarizes that with "Mirza saw an opportunity to vote for Innomen and waited until the last moment to do so." That's rubbish. My case can be explained in simple terms: I countered a votebomb temporarily, came back late and voted when I had both read the debate and judged it.

What's more, notice how Pro in his explanation (a) entirely disregards that I lost my Internet connection, have a habit of postponing, etc.

R2: Ad hominem

Pro claims I conceded that ad hominems are irrelevant. I challenge anyone to tell where I did that. He tries to escape the fact that I backfired when he accused me of making an ad hominem. I told him he misinterprets my case, he told me I lie. The latter is a far worse ad hominem, and thus a stricter violation of conduct.

Moving on, Pro defended his rage in his debate against Danielle by saying, "I had just joined the site and got upset specifically with Mirza's RFD for the sources point: 'bluesteel cites a book.'" I cannot believe Pro tries to get around this too! He raged before I even commented on the debate (back than there was no voting RFD), and now he claims he specifically got upset with my RFD. There was no RFD. And even if there were, it would come after he raged. http://tinyurl.com...

Another example of Pro's terrible way of misrepresenting and misinterpreting anything in this debate.

R3: No RFD

Pro yet again does not understand what I am telling him. He claims that my RFD was what I wrote in the voting section. I said too many times that it is not my actual RFD. I said that I would write an RFD in the comments section, but did not do so because once I gave my vote, Bluesteel and his many supporters attacked me heavily in the thread he linked. I thereby prioritized defending myself rather than giving an RFD.

"you're @sshole. fvck you. You basically admit to doing this because you didn't want to see me win and would rather see me pissed off." Sentences like this one made me go defensive. I found zero value in writing an RFD to his debate after reading nonsense like this. Moreover, Pro has used very lousy tactics to make me look like the bad guy. For instance, in his insulting thread I challenged him and many of his supporters for an official debate. Tvellalott accepted the challenge. However, Pro did not. I was completely fine with Pro never accepting my challenge. However, once Pro (almost a week after) challenged me, only a few hours after he instigated the challenge, he started mocking me with a petition: http://tinyurl.com...;

Yet Pro thinks I should have spent time writing an RFD for his debate. He can think again.

R4: Forgot Gileandos

Pro falsely claims that the best tactic for me is to say that I forgot Gileandos' vote. This argument of his is yet again filled with gibberish claims. First, I did not say I contacted Gileandos or ApostateAbe on Pro's behalf. I said that I wrote in the comments section that I did not want to engage in activities with them, after I realized that Gileandos' countered my own counter-votebomb (which was his fault). Second, I did not block any of the users, nor did I ever argue with them in the comments section after I told them that I did not want to talk to them anymore. Pro obviously has no clue about what was going on.

Additionally, although I realized that Gileandos cancelled my vote-counter, I did not want to change my vote because I wrote in the temporary RFD that I had not read the debate, and I will change my vote only at the point where I've read the debate fully. And, due to good reasons, I could not vote too early - but I made sure I could read, judge, and vote. I did all that. But, when I changed my vote to a real one, I did it because I kept my promise that I would vote for real. I had remember that ApostateAbe changed his vote (which was a good thing from my side), but I forgot that if I cancelled my counter to his vote, Gileandos' vote would give an unfair advantage to Innomen because he countered my counter-vote to ApostateAbe. This is perfectly honest, and Pro has no evidence to show that I deliberately voted for Innomen by knowing that Gileandos' vote counted (and was giving an unfair advantage to Innomen).

Moreover, I told Innomen and everyone else in Pro's thread that I would have nothing against my vote being removed, thus making Bluesteel the real winner. In fact, last week I personally contacted Juggle (no success yet) and told them to remove my vote. If my vote was strategic, I would defend it as much as I defend myself now. But I did not. It was an honest vote, but based on a mistake (and Gileandos' improper handling of my vote - blame him).

Also, Pro talks about how psychologists would interpret my words as lies. This is rubbish. To say "I genuinely believe" is the exact same thing as saying that "I know for sure." For instance, I often say "I believe in God" even though I clearly do not mean "I think God might exist." I mean that I for sure know God exists.

R5: Improbability

Con 'thinks' I logged on very early and saw Zetsubou's vote as a good opportunity to make a strategic vote. Pure babble. There's zero evidence for this. As for motive, I clearly said in the comments section that I would get back to other arguments. Now, I had no reason to vote for Innomen for any personal gains. I got nothing out of what I did. Innomen's relations with me would never change due to a vote for him.

Furthermore, Pro totally dropped my argument regarding the user Danielle. She and I have had many discussions and tense situations, yet I challenge anyone to find a place where I voted against her. In fact, I voted for her even in a debate with RoyLatham, whom I have neutral relations with. I've never argued with him, and he contributed to helping me change my views on say, 9/11 conspiracy (I'm not a truther anymore). Pro offered no reply to why I never voted against Danielle, but he tells me that I voted against him due to nonexistent hatred. That's nonsense.

R6: Admission of guilt

Pro says that recommending him for a cabinet position is not equivalent to liking him. I clearly said that he was eloquent, interesting, etc. That was the description I gave for Kinesis. He's telling me this is hatred? I even said it just days before voting.

Finally, Pro keeps misinterpreting my words. I merely meant that Pro would not find it unfair if he won the way Innomen did, hence I told him that he would be happy winning in an unfair way, while losing makes him rage childishly. Period.

Pro accepted no solution. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 5 years ago
Im_always_right
well just based on a little bit from pro's 1st round argument, it seems ApostateAbe was very strategic. Either that or he did mess up, but assuming he planned it he did a great job. Knowing his vote would be countered, and later changing it so that the other guy got 14 points for nothing rather than vote bombing and being cancelled out. It just seems like a strategic vote bomb. But there's a good chance he did mess up.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Mirza, it is apparent that the reason why you lost is because you do not pay attention to what you read. I never said you blocked them. I said that your opponent said you blocked them (what he really said was that you wanted to block them, my mistake there).
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
imabench,

That's what the debate has been about. You've come with an explanation that I've rebutted easily. The problem with Bluesteel's arguments is that they rely heavily on what *seems* to have happened, not what actually happened. My PM with Innomen, history of late debating/voting, etc., all prove that I had no intention to vote for Innomen. The 7-point to Bluesteel was for countering a votebomb. It was successful. Innomen got 1 point less. Gileandos changed his vote to counter mine, so *he* is to be blamed. It was a mistake of mine to correct my vote. I should have realized that Gileandos did *not* have a justified vote. But Bluesteel cannot grasp that, nor can the voters it seems.

Double_R,

Saying I blocked them etc., means you have not understood the debate. Period.

Ore_Ele,

What you're saying is fundamentally wrong. If it were true that telling someone he does something is equivalent to telling him that his action is part of his personality, then we would ALL be hypocrites, liars, ad infinitum. It is a fact that we all do wrong things once in a while; however, they are not necessarily part of our personalities. You're right about my example being past tense, but that changes nothing about the principle. Doing an action does not make the action a part of you. That's a fact. It would be improper to claim every action you commit is part of your personality.

Besides, notice how nobody of you gave a single conduct vote to me, despite Bluesteel shooting himself in the foot when he tells me that I did an ad hominem *by telling him that he misinterprets*. Then he called told me I lie. It's tragic how horribly people have voted. I never mind people judging properly, even for my opponent, but to claim that conduct was tie, and not understand so many of my points, that is abhorrent.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
There's a difference between saying someone lied 9 years ago and that they lied 5 minutes ago. But right now, you're just playing semantics, calling someone a coward and saying they "cowardized" out of something, has nothing but a semantical difference.

However, you should note that I voted and provided my RFD and additional explination of my RFD before finding that little quote, and as such, that quote had no effect on my vote.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
@Double R - I do see how it can appear that way. When I make an RFD, I try to keep it short and compact because of the limited character space, when I run out of room, I just continue into the comment section without expanding the past sections.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
I'm not using my PC atm., I cannot access Internet. I'll get back to you.

Ore_Ele, I'd happily ask you not to vote on my debates anymore. Thank you in advance. The fact that you find it "funny that I didn't call him a coward" and point out an example that I *refuted* and Bluesteel did not respond to it whatsoever tells me you have missed much more important points than just this one.

"In his first sentence, Pro claims that I called him a coward for not accepting my earlier debate challenge. That's not true. I'd call him a liar if anything, but I think he does believe in all the nonsense he utters. Nonetheless, what I said was that he cowered from the debate challenge. Is that an attack on his character? Not at all. Consider the following statement: "Josh told one lie in his life, about nine years ago. Therefore, Josh is a liar." This apparently is not very sound. The act of doing something does not mean it is part of your personality. Pro cowering from a debate challenge does not mean he's a coward."

But nevermind. To avoid arguing over your nonsensical voting, just refrain from voting on my debates O_E.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Ore_Ele, perhaps it is just the way your RFD was worded. You began by stating Mirza's argument, then proceeded with what sounded like your opinion of it. It get's confusing in a debate like this because it is nothing but opinions and interpretations, but I think more reference to Pros arguments would have clarified your vote. In my opinion anyway.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Mirza, in round 2 Pro stated that you went out of your way to contact BOTH users and were so upset by their behavior that you blocked BOTH of them. This gives very good reason to disregard your claim that you "forgot" about Gileandos, despite remembering about ApostateAbe. If Pros statement was false then Pro was lying about your actions, yet you never responded to this specific claim until the very end of the debate, giving Pro no chance to defend his own statement.

I don't find it reasonable to accept that Pro was lying about your actions on a website where it is extremely easy to verify, yet you did not find it worthy of contending in the following round and instead kept making your "I forgot" argument. If his statement was false then you should have challenged Pro to show proof, knowing that he would not be able to do so.

So either A) You did not challenge it because it was true, giving Pro the victory on that point, or B) You failed to contend a crucial argument that would have been very easy to refute. This makes Pros argument more convincing and thus justifies voting for him.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Mirza I saw what happened, it was a 10 point swing towards Innomen at the last possible second that gave him a one point lead as time expired and the rfd yougave for your second vote was "

"Everything tied except arguments. The debate was incredibly close, and a very hard one to judge. My vote on arguments goes to innomen. The resolution itself is specific, but not detailed enough. What is the meaning of "recognize" and what are the effects thereof? See comment for a brief explanation."

and this was after you gave a 7 point votebomb for innomen. And i read through this debate and I for one did not find a single excuse you offered for why you suddenly decided to give innomen a 10 point swing with almost no time left along with an explanation for why you did so that was completely contradictory to your original vote. As for the rest of the debate the defenses you offered for your actions were unsatisfactory to me.

Lastly i offered my first hand account of what I saw in the debate to show how
a) your last minute vote vompletely gave the debate to innomen even though you gave 7 points to bluesteel beforehand
b) the reasons why you changed your vote were unsatisfactory of why you decided to deduct bluesteel of ALL his points
c) without your original vote bomb the other guy would not have countered your vote bomb, so that would have deducted 7 points from innomen, then you changed your vote to cost bluesteel 7 points and then gave 3 of those directly to innomen for no explanation, so in total without your actions innomen would have been 10 points shorter of what he had and would have lost the debate. your actions were controversial, ill-explained, timed at the last moment, and the excuses you offered for your actions in this debate were simply excuses. THAT is why i voted for bluesteel in this debate, because your irresponsible voting cost him the debate he should have rightfully won.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I also find it funny that Mirza said that he never called BS a coward.

"bluesteel, Stay out of this debate. You cowardized out of a challenge, don't try to argue through comments."
http://www.debate.org...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
bluesteelMirzaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There really is not question here. Blue exposes mirzas lying (which was already improbable) using many psychological principles and completely destroys Mirzas defense. I am sorry to say, but Pro had me convnced from round one and none of Cons feeble rebuttals were anywhere close enough to negate the resolution.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
bluesteelMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's strongest defense against the allegation of strategic votebombing is that he "forgot" about Gileandos's vote, which Pro made clear was highly unlikely. In doing so Pro made specific claims as to why it was unlikely, and Con waited till the last round to address them. Con also waited till the last round to address the allegation of posting in the forums prior to the debate. These allegations would have been refuted immediately if Con was truly innocent as claimed. Verdict: Guilty.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
bluesteelMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Mirza's defense lies entirely upon forgetting about a particular vote bomb counter. This doesn't make sense. As BS pointed out, Mirza would manually have to delete his previous RFD. If he was acting honestly, it would make sense for him to double check that the VB that he was countering was removed before voting. There is then no reason for him to not see Gileandos' counter. And with so little time left, he should not have changed his vote, because (see comments for rest).
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
bluesteelMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was the first person to vote on the debate but after i voted I watched on and saw that the debate attracted many voters and that it was a close race, often both sides were never more than 4 points apart. Then when Mirza voted all 7 points to bluesteel for no real reason. Later though Mirza then restructured their vote, giving 3 points to innomen and NONE to bluesteel, for no reason again, giving innomen the win. I believe mirza was strategic based on what i saw with my own eyes that day