The Instigator
Sieben
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Official Debate Tournament: Badger is a Retard/Troll

Do you like this debate?NoYes+16
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 16 votes the winner is...
badger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,028 times Debate No: 16596
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (173)
Votes (16)

 

Sieben

Pro

Badger and I are due to debate some issue for the debate tournament. I have told Badger I am an anarcho capitalist and he cannot formulate a resolution to clash with this position. Since he is not an anarcho capitalist himself, he should have no problem.

Since he cannot formulate a resolution, I am left to conclude that badger is a mental retard or troll.

My burden in this debate is to prove that badger regularly engages in (intentionally) incoherant and moronic behaviour. I present no brightline or standards in the debate, and instead ask the audience to use their own judgement.

Debating begins in round 2.
badger

Con

ever harder what with the comments :)
Debate Round No. 1
Sieben

Pro

1) Badger's debate record

Badger has lost 13/18 of his debates. The only debates he has won have either been total joke debates or where his opponent has forfeited.

He ended his round with Orele with "I'm an idiot :)" http://www.debate.org...

Below a giant block of TLDR ramblings on soccor he wrote: "This is a terrible argument. I wrote it last night and at the time I was fairly spaced out of it. I'd try and fix it now, but I've only half an hour and I'll be leaving any minute anyway. I'll make myself more clear in my other rounds." http://www.debate.org...

He forfeited subsequent rounds.


2) Badger's profile

His picture is of a retarded looking lama...
He is a black Muslim teacher earning more than $150,000/yr in Kansas
He doesn't know what his own favorite color is


3) Quotes:

Badger claimed "rob is an anarcho capitalist" - http://www.debate.org... Rob is a communist...

In the same thread Badger claims that: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." despite the fact that commodity money has naturally started outside of governments... for example cigarettes in POW camps http://en.wikipedia.org...

In our private conversation over the debate, Badger wrote a lot of retarded stuff:

Badger writes: "you don't think anarcho capitalism must be minarchism to work?", apparently unaware that no-government and limited-government are not the same thing.

Badger thinks anarcho capitalism requires: "big motherf**king fortresses on top of things to own them...?" After I explained that anarcho capitalism just means non-aggression

He also wonders whether anarcho capitalism is compatible with currency.

Conclusion

Badger either has a severe mental problem or is trolling. He does not take himself seriously and puts up negative effort to be coherant on this website.
badger

Con

Rebuttals:

1) Badger's debate record

I'm here more to learn than to debate. I don't put much effort in when i do debate, most of the time, or get distracted and forfeit, or write rounds while intoxicated in some way. I suppose you might argue that the getting intoxicated and writing rounds was intentional, but that's not really fair... who doesn't do stupid things when they're drunk or otherwise intoxicated? :)

2) Badger's profile

He's a cool looking llama! but are you sure he's a llama? And i am indeed a black Muslim teacher earning more than $150,000 a year.. though i live in Ireland. That bit was a lie. And i just don't particularly favour any colour over any other. What's wrong with that?

3) Quotes

"Badger claimed "rob is an anarcho capitalist" - http://www.debate.org...... Rob is a communist..."

I later saw the light and agreed that Rob would be better called an anarcho communist green hippie dude, or along those lines.

"In the same thread Badger claims that: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." despite the fact that commodity money has naturally started outside of governments... for example cigarettes in POW camps"

There is nicotine in cigarettes making them addictive giving them value. That i'd consider like people trading tea or coffee, much more practical commodities than gold or silver. If you wanted to argue with me on anarcho capitalism you should've just given me a resolution.

"Badger writes: "you don't think anarcho capitalism must be minarchism to work?", apparently unaware that no-government and limited-government are not the same thing."

Well i'm wondering who'd be given control of minting money and minding what it referenced?

"He also wonders whether anarcho capitalism is compatible with currency."

Well first i was wondering was it feasible at all. And now i suppose it could come about through a government precursor. And i do wonder if anarchism is compatible with currency.

Sieben's conclusion:

You can hardly classify a joy of intoxicating myself a severe mental problem, a mental problem maybe, but it's left me pretty able even if i do say so myself. I mean i'm not a black Muslim teacher in Ireland because i'm an idiot.

my conclusion:

My opponent has not to me demonstrated that i have intentionally enged in incoherant or moronic behaviour, though i'm irish and we'd probably have different standards to a lot of people. I'd still plead subjectivity if i was pushed to though :)

Cheers i suppose lol


Debate Round No. 2
Sieben

Pro

1) Debate Record

Badger says he doesn't put much effort into debate, and often gets distracted/drunk and forfeits. Combine his confession with my arguments about his debate history. There is a strong indication that he makes bad arguments and wastes people's time INTENTIONALLY.

= trolling

2) Badger's Profile

Again, Pro is clearly lying about his profile because he thinks its reaaaaaally funny. His picture is of a retarded looking lama (?). This is trolling even if it is funny. Trolling can be funny. If you think Badger is funny you can still think he's a troll.


3) Quotes

The fact that Badger thought Rob was an anarcho capitalist in the first place is laughable. Rob has never said anything remotely capitalist and constantly complains about greed and corporations.

Badger doesn't address my argument that he's really really really stupid for thinking that currency REQUIRES a government. In fact, he goes on to describe why the value of commodities might allow them to become used as currency, defeating his own assertion that currency requires a government.

The currency/Rob are examples of Badger saying something retarded and then flip-flopping on it 5 seconds later. This is consistent incoherence.

Badger still doesn't seem to understand why minarchism and anarcho capitalism are different systems. The words "limited" and "no" mean different things. Badger does not understand what words mean.

Badger also thinks that anarchism might be incompatible with currency... This is especially rich because all the Anarcho Capitalists have always emphasized the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the return to market currencies.

Conclusion

Badger concedes to regular intoxication on these forums. This is not an excuse for THIS debate. Maybe its not his fault he's a moron, but he's still a moron. How can he contest this fact when he himself wrote "I'm an idiot :)"? His "Big fu­cking fortresses" theory points to idiocy, trolling, or both.
badger

Con

1) Debate Record

That wasn't a confession of intentionally wasting people's time. I fail to see how you took that from how I said. How does getting distracted or getting drunk = intentionally wasting people's time? I mean when i get distracted and forfeit, i forfeit, wasting no time at all really? Well not with bad arguments anyway. And when i'm drunk? Well I don't write all that many arguements when i'm drunk. I wrote that fifa debate after a load of speed if i remember correctly. Regardless, you're coming to a rather unsubstantiated conclusion in just assuming i write all that stuff with the intention of wasting people's time.

2) Badger's Profile

I fail to see how i'm clearly lying. And the llama is awesome!

3) Quotes

"The fact that Badger thought Rob was an anarcho capitalist in the first place is laughable. Rob has never said anything remotely capitalist and constantly complains about greed and corporations."

Well if you'll read through that thread you'll see i was talking about capitalism as a bartering system rather than the complex economic system rob hates. I did come into this not having the first clue about anarcho capitalism really...

"Badger doesn't address my argument that he's really really really stupid for thinking that currency REQUIRES a government. In fact, he goes on to describe why the value of commodities might allow them to become used as currency, defeating his own assertion that currency requires a government."

Well you didn't make an argument? You just said i'm really stupid for thinking this. And i don't think currency requres government. I just wonder at its compatability with anarchism. I'm certainly thinking government would have to bring about complex economic systems though.

"The currency/Rob are examples of Badger saying something retarded and then flip-flopping on it 5 seconds later. This is consistent incoherence."

Well i started operating under a different definition of capitalism there. A more sensible one i suppose. I flip-flopped on that comment i made about rob because i thought it incorrect operating under this new definition. Read the thread. I just seem like i'm learning there rather than being intentionally incoherent and moronic to waste people's time.

"Badger still doesn't seem to understand why minarchism and anarcho capitalism are different systems. The words "limited" and "no" mean different things. Badger does not understand what words mean."

No I understand the concepts. I was just wondering at why you think it'd work and not be corrupted really. I was just wondering who'd print money or enforce its value. Though even besides that i see the ideology as a corruption in itself.

Sieben's conclusion

Well i contested that "fact" with saying that i really don't think i'm an idiot, so that'd be adequte argument against that past "i'm an idiot" comment, right? And that "big motherfvcking fortresses" comment was just me wondering about how "property rights" would be established without government. I've since supposed that property rights could exist in an anarcho capitalist world through it having come from government, but besides through unanimous decision or having a big motherfucking fortress on a spot i can't really see any other way in which they could've come about. Can you? :)

Debate Round No. 3
Sieben

Pro

1) Debate History

Badger doesn't think he confessed to wasting people's time. He wrote in round 3: "I don't put much effort in when i do debate, most of the time, or get distracted and forfeit, or write rounds while intoxicated in some way."

When you get distracted or intoxicated and forfeit a debate, you ruin the debate. You waste the other person's time. It is very simple.

Badger says in addition to drinking, he also takes speed. He probably takes many other types of drugs while posting on these forums. He tries to use them as an excuse for is incoherence, which is fine, but he's CONCEDING incoherence.

All in all, we can't know for sure if Badger's goal is to waste people's time, but he does it anyway. This is why the resolution is over whether badger is incoherent/moronic/trolling (see round 1). Take your pick.

2) Badger's Profile

Badger is clearly lying because the probability of being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas is really low. His continued defense of this claim is clearly trolling, as he elsewhere in the debate claims to be Irish.

The Llama is also trolling.


3) Quotes

Badger claims to have been talking about Ancap as a barter system. No one uses this definition. This is even after I told him that Ancap would have private currency, and the he should go read the wikipedia article on Anarcho capitalism.

Furthermore, to think that Rob, a self described communist who uses capitalism as a swear word, is an anarcho capitalist is incredibly stupid.

Badger goes on to say that he doesn't think currency requires a government. This is inconsistent with his earlier position I quoted in Round 2: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." Again, Badger is (intentionally) incoherent.

Badger says he flip-flopped on Rob because the definition of anarcho capitalism changed. No it didn't. Anarcho capitalism means non-aggression. I told him that several times myself, and he has been told endlessly by others. Badger simply had the WRONG definition of anarcho capitalism because he's trolling and/or moronic.

Lastly, Badger tries to twist his faux pas on minarchism/anarchism. He now says he meant to ask why anarchism wouldn't turn into a government. He did no such thing. He just said that anarcho capitalism requires "big motherf**king fortresses on top of things to own them". So he's not bringing up some technical point about the course of anarcho capitalist societies, he's just blankly asserting that anarcho capitalism would require apocalyptic slave machines. What a colorful imagination.

Conclusion

Badger's basic technique has been to repeat my own arguments against him in an effort to save face. "Yes Sieben, I know I say a lot of stupid stuff on purpose okay?" Well, that's really generous, but it means Badger is a stupid troll.

Badger's debate history speaks to his incoherence. All of my claims about his poor behavior stand untouched. All he can say is that it's not his fault if he is chronically intoxicated. Causality aside, his incredibly poor performance and ending debates prematurely with "I'm an idiot :)" kind of prove he's an idiot.

My burden from Round 1 was to "prove that badger regularly engages in (intentionally) incoherent and moronic behavior.". His debates are consistently horrible. His profile is a bad joke. His interactions on the forums are imbecilic at best. He's practically on my side.

badger

Con

1) Debate History

I don't think i confessed to that. That i said i don't put in much effort doesn't imply i put in no effort at all or negative effort, just not much effort. And when i get distracted and forfeit, well, that's hardly being incoherant and moronic; I've not said something to not be understanable or understood as moronic! And for the fifa debate I blamed my incoherancy and moronics (though i wasn't too bad for someone out of his nut i thought :)) on mind altering drugs. I've a sober side too :)

I've taken speed. I smoke weed. And i only conceded incoherance in the fifa debate. That i conceded incoherance once doesn't really do much for you bud. You still had the regularly bit to prove. What with not having proved it, one has no reason to believe i'm absolutely a retard, or even a retard as per your definition/burden. Why not just someone who enjoys an odd intoxicant? :) Nor without numerous examples have they any reason to believe i'm trolling and thus a troll.

"All in all, we can't know for sure if Badger's goal is to waste people's time, but he does it anyway. This is why the resolution is over whether badger is incoherent/moronic/trolling (see round 1). Take your pick."

Well it's not actually a matter of choice between those three. It was actually that you had to prove that i regularly engage in both incoherant and moronic behaviour to make up a retard/troll. Incoherant and moronic being your definition for both a troll and a retard in this debate it seems going by the burden you set yourself. The intentionally having been needed to be proved extra to prove i'm a troll (i'll take it i suppose? ;)) which you've just conceded that you can't.

2) Badger's Profile

"Badger is clearly lying because the probability of being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas is really low. His continued defense of this claim is clearly trolling, as he elsewhere in the debate claims to be Irish."

Well first of all, why are we to believe the chances of there being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas are really low? And secondly, if they're only still really low, rather than negligible or nonexistent, then there is still a chance that i am a black muslim teacher in Kansas and thus there was a lot more to be argued. I'm not just clearly lying. Thirdly, i've been consistent in saying i'm Irish throughout the entirety of the debate :P

I will however admit that claim to be false. I was trolling :P ..though that'd still only be one mark against with regards to the trolling side of the resolution, and wouldn't do much to prove that i do so regularly. So as per your definition, i still wouldn't necessarily be a troll. Coherancy and moronics aside.

But given as you also presented no brightline or standards for this debate and instead asked the audience to use their own judgement, i'll go so far as to ask that they not hold that act of trollery against me at all, given that it could be taken as me making light of what i quite possibly find a rather insulting situation, and thus wouldn't necessarily point to me truly being a troll :)

"The Llama is also trolling."

How is the llama trolling!?

3) Quotes


"Badger claims to have been talking about Ancap as a barter system. No one uses this definition. This is even after I told him that Ancap would have private currency, and the he should go read the wikipedia article on Anarcho capitalism."

I was. And i don't think all too moronically so either. I would personally use capitalism as a word to describe a system of survival by which individuals survive by means of making use of their abilities to exploit others, as opposed to how i'd use socialism to describe a collective effort at survival. In other words, capitalism, to me, means a dog eat dog system of survival, while, socialism, to me, means a dog help dog system of survival. I would not prior to the discussions our pm has generated have used capitalism as a name for complex economics, or at least for a name for complex economics alone. So when you got stuck in a loop of just saying things like "non-agression" and "non-aggression principle" over and over again, i got confused thinking non-aggression to me held no inherent place in capitalism, so what place did it hold for you. I initially jumped to kumbaya stuff and went to lump ye all in with Rob, but i suppose i've seen better of ye now. Some bit anyway. It's just that ye think there'd be no aggressive institution like what ye'd consider majority government? Coherant? I think so. Did i moronically jump to the wrong conclusion? I don't really think so myself :) And either way, I'd still have to be both moronic and incoherant as per the burden my opponent set himself (the definition of retard/troll?). I suppose the audience might think i've been both incoherant and moronic?

I probably should've read the wikipedia article in its entirety before saying anything at all on the matter though. I've got like a reading problem? A short attention span or something like that? Not a retardation as per my opponent's definition though!

"Furthermore, to think that Rob, a self described communist who uses capitalism as a swear word, is an anarcho capitalist is incredibly stupid."

Rob was an anarchist last i remember? One who preached kumbya stuff like i was thinking AnCaps were.

"Badger goes on to say that he doesn't think currency requires a government. This is inconsistent with his earlier position I quoted in Round 2: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." Again, Badger is (intentionally) incoherent."

First of all, when i said that i didn't think currency required government, i only meant to say that i'm not absolutely sure that an economic system (or at least a fair one) wouldn't be feasible working in anarchy. You forgot to note what i said immeadiately afterwards, that being, "I just wonder at its compatability with anarchism", which would've made that a whole lot clearer and makes what i'm saying a whole lot less inconsistent with that earlier statement.

It is, however, still somewhat inconsistent, but inconsistent on purpose, by reason of me having changed my stance in what i'd consider a coherant and reasonable manner. And still only somewhat consistent in that i still think it a rather large probability that government would just reform from the anarchy by means of there being problems in anarchic economic regulation, regulation to prevent corruption that is, and in that i also couldn't see currency arising short of with some form of government as a precursor.

"Badger says he flip-flopped on Rob because the definition of anarcho capitalism changed. No it didn't. Anarcho capitalism means non-aggression. I told him that several times myself, and he has been told endlessly by others. Badger simply had the WRONG definition of anarcho capitalism because he's trolling and/or moronic."

I've explained my "flip-flop" as best i can already. See what i mean with the non-aggression stuff?

"Lastly, Badger tries to twist his faux pas on minarchism/anarchism. He now says blah blah blah"

What faux pas? I was just wondering were you a minarchist as it'd be the only real hope i'd see for the ideology at having any chance of practical success, at least for us common folk. I asked you numerous times were you a minarchist to which you just replied "non-agression!". If you wanted to debate anarcho capitalism you should've just not been a prat and helped me form a resolution.

Conclusion:

I'm glad i won't have anymore rounds by Sieben to reply to and am not considering myself a troll or a retard. But that's just me. I promise i'll not take any votes personally given fair rfd's :) Anyway, i'm out of characters, so i'll leave Sieben's conclusions as Sieben's conclusions.

Cheers for the debate bud :)

Debate Round No. 4
173 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Sieben didn't have a massive crowd harassing and votebombing him. Makes me wonder.
Posted by Invalid 4 years ago
Invalid
Why can't you be a black, Muslim Irish man? Obama is Irish. I know he's not Muslim despite what people say, but is it really that far-fetched?
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"It's a little frustrating to be told that I can't read and that I need to learn to read by someone who's misunderstanding of grammar prevents them from articulating the resolution they supposedly intended."

Point me in the direction of a grammar rule that says (blank) blank means the same thing as blank blank.

"Putting "intentionally" in brackets is not the same as saying "whether intentionally or not". If the intent is unimportant, then why mention it at all? Obviously because intent is in fact crucial to trolling."

Intent is crucial to trolling, but I do not set myself the burden of proving badger is a troll.

"And as for reconstucting your opponent's case for him, if someone instigates a debate setting themselves a clear burden that they do not fulfill, then they have pretty much already defeated themselves and their opponent's arguments become less important in determining the winner."

So you're conceding that no matter how badly badger argues, you're still going to vote that HE beat ME based on what YOU think about his case. How stupid are you?

"Anyway not going to bother arguing anymore with self-deluding egotist supertroll Sieben anymore here, hopefully he will step up to my challenge in the tournament."

Dude you're like 5 days late on this. Your brain must work super fast.
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
It's a little frustrating to be told that I can't read and that I need to learn to read by someone who's misunderstanding of grammar prevents them from articulating the resolution they supposedly intended.

Putting "intentionally" in brackets is not the same as saying "whether intentionally or not". If the intent is unimportant, then why mention it at all? Obviously because intent is in fact crucial to trolling.

As said before, if terms like retard and moron are not intended literally they become entirely subjective.

And as for reconstucting your opponent's case for him, if someone instigates a debate setting themselves a clear burden that they do not fulfill, then they have pretty much already defeated themselves and their opponent's arguments become less important in determining the winner.

Anyway not going to bother arguing anymore with self-deluding egotist supertroll Sieben anymore here, hopefully he will step up to my challenge in the tournament.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"I did read the debate as evidenced by my analysis of how the points you brought up didn't satisfy your burden."

If you read the debate you'd know what my burden was.

"I wouldn't have thought so but that is what you seemingly did.'

Except you can't read

"You seem to have a misunderstandng of what the use of parenthesis implies. Putting a word in brackets doesnt equal saying "possibly"."

It implies that the phrase is different from "intentionally incoherent". No one else has this problem. You're just trying to weasel out and provide an ad hoc justification for your decision. If nothing else, you should accept what I'm *trying* to say instead of deliberately interpreting it so that I unintentionally defeat myself in the first round.

"You specifically mentioned his intentions.'

See necessary and sufficient conditions.

"I hadn't even heard of trolling before coming to DDO but from my understanding intent is crucial to trolling."

Learn to read. Moronic behavior + knowing what you're doing = trolling

"No, it is incorrect. How is it moronic?"

Because "anarcho capitalist" and "communist" mean different things. You don't think saying 2+2=5 is moronic? The qualification for moronic is when someone makes a really really simple mistake.

"There are a lot of reasons someone might forfeit a debates and calling yourself an idiot can easily just be an admission that you were incorrect."

See intentionally wasting people's time.

"If an incoherent statement is a result of genuine misunderstanding that is not intentional."

Burden is not to prove intentionality. Sorry.

"Badger demonstrated he wasn't a literal moron, your bare assertions didn't require much refutation and badger clearly responded adequately."

I don't have to prove he's a literal moron. I have to prove his BEHAVIOR is either incoherent or moronic. It is both.

Badger did not bring up any of the burden-points you are bringing up. You are reconstructing his case for him. B
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
"Well maybe you should actually read the debate. Many debates have a title that does not reflect ..."

I did read the debate as evidenced by my analysis of how the points you brought up didn't satisfy your burden.

"I agree that it is difficult to prove someone's intentions. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to set myself an impossible burden?"

I wouldn't have thought so but that is what you seemingly did.

"My burden in this debate is to prove that badger regularly engages in (intentionally) incoherant and moronic behaviour."

"So it might be intentional, or it might not."

You seem to have a misunderstandng of what the use of parenthesis implies. Putting a word in brackets doesnt equal saying "possibly".

"And I am referring to his BEHAVIOUR. Not his intentions."

You specifically mentioned his intentions.

"So your behaviour can be moronic and you can still have brilliant intentions. Its called trolling."

I hadn't even heard of trolling before coming to DDO but from my understanding intent is crucial to trolling.

"It is Moronic to think that Rob the communist is an anarcho capitalist"

No, it is incorrect. How is it moronic?

"to forfeit debates and call yourself an idiot, etc"

There are a lot of reasons someone might forfeit a debates and calling yourself an idiot can easily just be an admission that you were incorrect.

"It is incoherent to say that anarchism and minarchism are the same thing. Badger claims to have meant something different, but his verbatim statement is an oxymoron"

If an incoherent statement is a result of genuine misunderstanding that is not intentional.

"And btw? You judge a debate based on what the DEBATERS did. You are using YOUR OWN arguments to dismantle my case. You're giving badger the win based on something he never did"

Badger demonstrated he wasn't a literal moron, your bare assertions didn't require much refutation and badger clearly responded adequately.

"Yeah that's not biased..
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Innomen and bigpoppa both said Badger was a troll but voted Con.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
Well conceding an argument counts as losing it doesn't it.

Most of the stuff you said in the round was not directly contesting your incoherent statements. You either tried to explain them ("i'm drunk lol") or twist them. You might have meant that anarchism would devolve into minarchism, but what you SAID was oxymoronic.

It doesn't matter if you can clarify yourself later. You still say incoherent stuff.

Nm not arguing with supertroll badger.
Posted by badger 5 years ago
badger
i might've conceded sieben, but i still made better arguments that you :P and i said most of that stuff that feverish said didn't i?
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
@Feverish

Well maybe you should actually read the debate. Many debates have a title that does not reflect Pro/Con positions. It implies that Badger accepts my self-imposed burden if he accepts the debate, because he could read it in advance.

I agree that it is difficult to prove someone's intentions. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to set myself an impossible burden?

"My burden in this debate is to prove that badger regularly engages in (intentionally) incoherant and moronic behaviour."

So it might be intentional, or it might not. And I am referring to his BEHAVIOUR. Not his intentions. So your behaviour can be moronic and you can still have brilliant intentions. Its called trolling.

It is Moronic to think that Rob the communist is an anarcho capitalist, to forfeit debates and call yourself an idiot, etc etc.

It is incoherent to say that anarchism and minarchism are the same thing. Badger claims to have meant something different, but his verbatim statement is an oxymoron.

And btw? You judge a debate based on what the DEBATERS did. You are using YOUR OWN arguments to dismantle my case. You're giving badger the win based on something he never did. In fact, he conceded that he was incoherent. Yeah that's not biased...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SiebenbadgerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This a debate in Freeman's tournament, so I'm obligated to vote all seven points to one side. No one defined "mental retard/troll" so the common definitions apply: having substantial mental disability/posts so as to try to anger people. Pro granted Con won some debates. Moreover, Con wrote the present debate in well-formed clear English. Pro had a start at making a case or trolling, but didn't produce enough examples. Nothing showed serious intent to troll.
Vote Placed by That.Guy 5 years ago
That.Guy
SiebenbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the clear victor here, easily dispatching all of Pro's arguments. Con clearly has better conduct, as Pro commonly uses the word "retarded", while Con never goes on the offensive. Pro uses more sources, so I must give him that
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
SiebenbadgerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 7 points as per tourney rules. As a result of, A) the lack of definition(s), B) sieben's straying from the real issues at hand and reverting to ad hominems against badger, and C) simply lacking the convincing strength an argument needs, my vote goes to badger.
Vote Placed by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
SiebenbadgerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by alextp7 5 years ago
alextp7
SiebenbadgerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was funnier.
Vote Placed by davidhancock 5 years ago
davidhancock
SiebenbadgerTied
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: ok guys derp this is a debate of behavior if you had half a mind you would have realised that he forfeited in the second round
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
SiebenbadgerTied
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 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: What is with these votes? This is an extremely one-sided win by Pro. First, remember that Sieben must prove badger does unfavorable behavior intentionally. By Con admitting he does debates while drunk and puts little effort into rounds, he concedes this in round 2. So youre already voting Pro based off the burden of intentional behavior. But even more so, Con auto-loses point three by saying that currency doesn't require a government, which contradicts his earlier statement. 7 for tourney rules.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
SiebenbadgerTied
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 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: See comments.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
SiebenbadgerTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to truly attempt to understand cons position and also had used to many conceited arguments and failed to respect his opposition. But pros grammar was better.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
SiebenbadgerTied
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 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: Seven points to winner as per tournament rules. Huge Edit: I missed that Pro's burden was to prove that Con engages in intentionally stupid behavior and not that he is literally retarded. In that case, Pro won the arguments: Con clearly does do this. His incoherent responses only helped prove the truth of Pro's assertion. Arguments, spelling and grammar, and sources to Pro, conduct to Con, 6-1 win for Pro.