The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Rational_Thinker9119 is possibly the smartest debater on DDO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 52035
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Hello there. I'd like to argue RT9119 is possibly the smartest debater on DDO.Smart: intelligence;commonsensehttp://dictionary.reference.com... will have to argue that someone is definitely smarter than RT9119.Round one is for acceptance only.
Romanii

Con

I accept this debate.

Just to clarify, I believe RT is definitely one of the smartest debaters on here, but not THE smartest.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

well, first of all, as can seen from his debate profile on http://www.debate.org..., he has won almost 80% of his debates, an impressive amount that racked up a high and mighty elo score of 3,711. Of course, being an amazing debater doesn't really justify that he's extremely smart, but I will get to that later.
Now, Rational Thinker is a very scientific thinker, posting to The Cosmological Argument, and he asks Atheists to Explain the Universe, posting to that specific topic many many times, with intriguing comments and confusing ones too, one example being "...there is a contradiction with the A-Theory of time because each moment would be the past, present, and future which is a contradiction as every moment, at any given time, can only be one of the three, but not all three simultaneously.

I'm on the fence on whether or not that certain argument is sound, but it has many defenders in the philosophy of time."-- from http://www.debate.org...
What in the universe did he just say? I caught something about time and philosophy, but I didn't get anything else. Another good complex post is when he said
"...P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: The universe has a cause

or something like:

P1: Everything that exists has an explanation, either in an external cause or the necessity of its own nature
P2: The universe exists
P3: The universe has an explanation, either an external cause of the necessity of its own nature
P4: The universe does not have a necessary nature
C: The universe has an explanation in an external cause"--from http://www.debate.org...
This is all very scientific, and it is obvious that Rational Thinker is astute in these fields of knowledge. Now, I know what you will say--"Well, not all scientists are super smart!" And that is true. However, I will prove further that RT is extremely smart within his debates.
RT's Debates: Most times Rational Thinker spends a lot of time on his debates, listing concise points and researched very thoroughly. Once, he was so confusing the opponent basically gave up! His opponent even outright stated "wtf is this, my brain is having trouble processing..." (see http://www.debate.org...)
In addition, his series of "my opponent will not win this debate" has been so cleverly devised that no one has won the debates, whether they attempt to argue about the rules, didn't even try, or even if RT trolls with dumb arguments, he still wins! His smart rule of "aBcD" only applying to the opponent made the debate unequal and near impossible, frustrating, and insanely hard to win.
Finally, one troll debate I found clearly demonstrates RT's incredible genius. http://www.debate.org...
He purposefully forfeited, and stated that he was so stupid he thinks he can win even after he forfeited, showing his "debateness" in this debate. Of course, had he really been stupid, he wouldn't have thought of the ingenious idea of forfeiting then "so stupid that he thought he could win".
It can be seen from everything above that Rational_Thinker9119 is (possibly) the smartest debater on this site, if not already the smartest.
Romanii

Con

Thanks to Pro for his argument.

Since Pro has not stated otherwise, he has the burden of proof, since he is making the positive claim. I just have to refute his contentions.


R1) ELO

"well, first of all, as can seen from his debate profile ... he has won almost 80% of his debates, an impressive amount that racked up a high and mighty elo score of 3,711"

There are many, many debaters with a higher elo than that.
http://www.debate.org...



R2) Scientific Knowledge

"Now, Rational Thinker is a very scientific thinker, posting to The Cosmological Argument, and he asks Atheists to Explain the Universe, posting to that specific topic many many times, with intriguing comments and confusing ones too...This is all very scientific, and it is obvious that Rational Thinker is astute in these fields of knowledge."

There are several other debaters who have done much higher level debates concerning science and philosophy.
Examples:

Sargon vs. Citrakayah
http://www.debate.org...

dyancatlow vs. RoyLatham
http://www.debate.org...

popculturepooka vs. Sargon
http://www.debate.org...

"Once, he was so confusing the opponent basically gave up! His opponent even outright stated 'wtf is this, my brain is having trouble processing...'"

That is not necessarily a good thing.
Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" (http://www.brainyquote.com...)

Now, I'm not saying that RT doesn't know what he's talking about; I'm just saying that the use of high level terminology does not equate to intelligence.



R3) "My Opponent Will Lose This Debate" series

"In addition, his series of 'my opponent will not win this debate' has been so cleverly devised that no one has won the debates, whether they attempt to argue about the rules, didn't even try, or even if RT trolls with dumb arguments, he still wins!"

It does not take a high level of intelligence to come up with a ploy like that. All it takes is some creativity. In addition, recently, BananaPhilosopher beat him at his own game, fooling RT into taking a debate with a 5 minute argument time limit. RT even conceded that BP had done a "good job". (http://www.debate.org...)



R4) Trolling

"Finally, one troll debate I found clearly demonstrates RT's incredible genius.

He purposefully forfeited, and stated that he was so stupid he thinks he can win even after he forfeited, showing his "debateness" in this debate. "

First of all, being able to troll well does not equate to genius, though it does take a good amount of humor and creativity. Second of all, even if it did, there have been many other troll debates that are much, much more hilarious.
Examples:

Imabench
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Massivedump
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...



I have refuted all of my opponent's contentions.

I hand the debate back to Pro.


Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

As said by your man Albert Einstein, "Creativity is intelligence having fun." However, winning lots of troll debates does not mean you are extremely intelligent. It just means you are a very good troll. I was only pointing out that Rational Thinker was extremely versatile, not only good in normal debates, but also good at troll debates.
http://www.goodreads.com...

"Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". Well, RT did "explain it simply" by saying "a conscious mind is the grounding of everything", which basically sums up all his complex arguments. As you can see he understands it well enough, based on Einstein's quote.

High elo does not equal good debater--one great example is Mikal. He may have the highest elo in all of DDO, but even he submits to others as seen in this message to thett3:

Hey, Mikal's the best person, he knows his own debating ability and limits, so he can be said a pretty credible source!
"BananaPhilosopher beat him at his own game, fooling RT into taking a debate with a 5 minute argument time limit." Although RT did ignore the fact that there was a 5 minute argument time limit, he could simply be unobservative. Unobservative does not automatically mean stupid. For example, a scientist in quantum study who is a genius in the fields, won tons of nobel peace prizes, and made loads of speech that made the crowd love him, and is voted by 99% of the world to be "smartest person on earth", he could one day simply be too concentrated on walking to his lab to do an experiment to notice that there was a mugging on the street within his peripheral vision.

And how many times do I have to stress this: being an amazing debater does NOT mean being super smart. However, it does just means you have good support, or research, or logical reasoning, which are some level of smartness. I was only pointing out that RT was a good debater, better than many others, and he has these quality, which support him to some level of smartness. This was only a small addition to my other proof.

As for higher level of sciences and philosphy, those are very arguable. RT mainly does debates about god's existence, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (whatever that is), and other debates. Even in the (serious) debates he lost, he provides lots and lots of information about the topic he provided and supports his side with loads of argument, making him incredibly hard to lose against. That's pretty smart of him, providing so much information and attempting to overload the opponent with too much information, even if he loses.
One great example form the debate "A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World":
"P1: It is greater to be perfect than imperfect
P2: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is perfect
P3: It is greater to be unlimited than limited.
P4: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is unlimited.
P5: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is perfect and unlimited.
P6: If it is possible for a perfect being to exist, this being improves upon its greatness in no possible world.
P7: If it is possible for an unlimited being to exist, this being improves upon its greatness in some possible world.
P8: There cannot be both no possible world where a maximally great being improves upon its greatness, and some possible world where a maximally great being improves upon its greatness.
P9: A maximally great being exists in no possible world.
P10: A maximally great being does not exist in the actual world."
It can be seen because of the amount of knowledge RT knows that he is very knowledgable, and thus, very smart. (which supports my statement that RT is possibly the smartest debater on DDO. Stress on the possibly, BTW)
Vote pro!
Romanii

Con



R1) Debating Skills

"I was only pointing out that Rational Thinker was extremely versatile, not only good in normal debates, but also good at troll debates."


There are a number of debaters who do lots of great troll and serious debates, including, Imabench, xXCryptoXx, Mikal, and Jifpop09. Versatility is not a characteristic unique to RT.

"Although RT did ignore the fact that there was a 5 minute argument time limit, he could simply be unobservative. Unobservative does not automatically mean stupid."

Again, I am not, in any way, trying to argue that RT is stupid. I'm just pointing out that he's been tricked before, so that lowers the chance of him being the smartest debater on DDO.

"Even in the (serious) debates he lost, he provides lots and lots of information about the topic he provided and supports his side with loads of argument, making him incredibly hard to lose against"

Uh, so do pretty much ALL the debaters on this site... that's the whole point of debate...
Examples of argument-loaded debates:

J.Kenyon vs. Danielle
http://www.debate.org...

RoyLatham vs. Mikal
http://www.debate.org...

Having a variety of arguments is nothing special among good debaters.




R2) Self-Refutations / Baseless Assertions by Pro...

"High elo does not equal good debater--one great example is Mikal. He may have the highest elo in all of DDO, but even he submits to others..."

I fail to see how this supports Pro's case... So he's saying RT's high elo does not necessarily mean he is a good debater?
Or is he saying RT is a much better debater than his elo suggests? If Pro's opting for the latter, he's going to have to provide some very compelling evidence of that.

"And how many times do I have to stress this: being an amazing debater does NOT mean being super smart."

Pro is refuting his own case again... he just finished talking about how good RT is at debating, and then goes on to assert that being good at debating does not imply having high intelligence.
Unless, of course, Pro is implying that RT is much smarter than his debating skills suggest. Again, Pro will need to provide VERY compelling evidence for this; otherwise it is just a baseless assumption.




R3) RT's Knowledge

"It can be seen because of the amount of knowledge RT knows that he is very knowledgable, and thus, very smart. (which supports my statement that RT is possibly the smartest debater on DDO"

Again, having lots of knowledge is not that unique among the site's top debaters. I already showed some examples of debates where other debaters were able to discuss much more complicated topics than RT does.

Let's take a look at a few of RT's losses to illustrate the point that, while RT's knowledge is no doubt greater than that of most people, he almost certainly does NOT HAVE THE MOST ON THIS SITE.

All 3 of these lost debates were against Sargon (who RT has never been able to beat).

http://www.debate.org...
In this debate, RT plagiarized his argument for an entire round, showing that either he didn't know the topic well enough to put it in his own words, or that he didn't have a good enough sense of judgement to avoid plagiarizing.

http://www.debate.org...
In this debate, Sargon actually convinced RT of his side so well, that RT conceded the debate!

http://www.debate.org...
In this debate, Sargon ONCE AGAIN convinced RT of his side so well, that RT conceded the debate!



CONCLUSIONS:

R1 - Pro's arguments concerning RT's debating skills are weak

R2 - Pro is either a) refuting his own arguments concerning elo and debate skills, or b) making baseless assertions that RT is much smarter than the evidence suggests

R3 - Pro's arguments attempting to show that RT has the greatest amount of knowledge on the site are easily debunked by the examples I provided.


Back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Last round. Nice rebutting, BTW.
As for number of debaters who are extremely versatile, I will give an example of a great debate in which the biggest troll got trolled. Remember the "My opponent will not win this debate" series? Well, imabench was in one of them, and he lost! He got trolled by RT, just for saying "state your case" after his "Acceptance", and RT unfairly and very troll-like said "the first round was JUST for acceptance", stressing on "Just". Imabench was practically so frustrated he simply swore for the rest of the debate. This shows RT's smartness-he knew how to get on the biggest troll's nerves, by trolling the troll. This shows he is even smarter than imabench!
Very compelling evidence for being an amazing debater vs being super smart...Do I have to keep on stating this was only a weak opening statement? I wanted the rest of my arguments to seem super strong in comparison, so I started off with an extremely weak statement.
As for Sargon being super convincing, I will choose the first debate to argue about. RT may have been the Devil's Advocate on this topic. Furthermore, the topic is so complex that I can't understand a single word of it. WTF is Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation?!) RT understanding such deep topics shows that he is very knowledgeable about this, and because such, he is very smart. (Because, seriously, I would reply "WTF is Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation? And WTF is the the Minkowski interpretation?")
In the 2cd debate, RT openly acknowledges "The bulk of my losses are from playing devils advocate and conceding. " This shows that RT knows his side very well, and challenges himself to go for the other side. It is only logical that he fails, as he probably already debated versus himself this topic, and the pro side already won over.
Finally, you argument about greater knowledge. This is probably my strongest argument, and it is because of the word "POSSIBLY". This stresses that it could be many many people have the same knowledge about the topics RT knows, and because we don't know how deep everyone knows about these respective topics, I started off this topic saying "POSSIBLY", stress on "POSSIBLY."
Good debate. I can't say it was easy to support the opinion that RT MIGHT be the smartest person on DDO.
Romanii

Con

Thanks again to Pro.


R1) Debate Skills

"As for number of debaters who are extremely versatile, I will give an example of a great debate in which the biggest troll [imabench] got trolled... This shows RT's smartness-he knew how to get on the biggest troll's nerves, by trolling the troll. This shows he is even smarter than imabench!"

Let's take a look at the debate: http://www.debate.org...
Imabench did not get flustered at all, actually... He accepted his defeat by Round 3, and his insults were meant to be entertaining (which they were). All Pro is showing with these "My Opponent will Lose this Debate" debates is that RT can win a debate which was designed to make him win anyways. Incredible feat. Wow. (Sarcasm).

"Very compelling evidence for being an amazing debater vs being super smart...Do I have to keep on stating this was only a weak opening statement?"

Seeing as this is the only other statement made by Pro about RT's debate skills, it is safe to assume that Pro has conceded this argument.




R2) Intelligence

" RT may have been the Devil's Advocate on this topic... RT knows his side very well, and challenges himself to go for the other side. It is only logical that he fails"

Allow me to provide some excellent examples of people who have played Devil's Advocate and WON.

Sargon:
http://www.debate.org...

Wylted:
http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, playing Devil's Advocate does NOT automatically imply failure, so saying RT doing so excuses his concession is illogical.

"the topic is so complex that I can't understand a single word of it."

Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't make RT a genius...
Sargon understands it so well that he won TWO debates on the subject (the first was provided in round 1 as one of the examples of debates which are at least as high level as RT's debates).

And it isn't just Sargon. Many users on this site, such as Mikal, bladerunner060, Magic8000, GWL-CPA, Subutai, and Citrakayah have displayed the ability to understand such technical terminology, completely disproving the notion that RT's use of it means he is the smartest user on the site.


Also, Pro has declined to comment on the debate that RT plagiarized in; thus Pro concedes that either
1) RT lacks knowledge about Quantum Mechanics or
2) RT lacks the good judgement to avoid plagiarizing

This alone shows that RT is almost certainly NOT the smartest debater on the site, as many debaters here have never plagiarized before AND have an in-depth knowledge of QM.




R3) "Possibly"

"I started off this topic saying "POSSIBLY", stress on "POSSIBLY."... RT MIGHT be the smartest person on DDO."

Here, we see Pro turning to semantics after all his actually decent arguments have been refuted.

First of all, if we look at the comments section of the debate, we see that Pro STOLE this idea from the observations of several other members such as RT himself, Ragnar, and philochristos.
Pro even admitted in the comments section that using this idea hadn't occurred to him, saying that "I actually didn't think of that. LOL".

However, no where does Pro credit any one of those users with giving him this idea. Pro has pretty much plagiarized!
Such a flagrant violation of conduct should, at the very least, invalidate this argument.



CONCLUSIONS

R1- Pro has conceded his arguments about RT's debating skills

R2- There are several people who are likely to have even MORE knowledge of science and philosophy than RT

R3- Pro has stolen this argument from elsewhere without giving credit where it's due, automatically invalidating it.


Vote Con!


Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
"Pro has stolen this argument from elsewhere " lol no, this idea is original, I didn't even talk about how RT thought of what I had not thought of--he cannot meet is BoP that he ISN'T smart. I didn't think of that when I challenged RT to this.
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
Haroush
I gave S&G points to Con as well because of Pro's organization wasn't so great.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
debateness=stupidness. sorry for misspell
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
besides, even imabench and Mikal ARE the best debaters, that does not mean they are the smartest debaters!
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Debaters are not puritans; his opinion may either change, or he may argue resolutions that do not match his opinions.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
Argue that he contradicts himself. He also said Imabench and Mikal were the best -_-
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Damn I didn't notice the potential abuse of the word "possible"....

Spaceking, you seem like a pretty nice guy who isn't interested in cheating to win a debate; could you maybe post a revised version of the resolution in your round 2 argument substituting the word "likely" for the word "possibly"?

Pretty please with a cherry on top?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I think everyone should say that philochristos, and finally acknowledge the superior intellect that is RT.
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
He's a DDO user therefore their is a small chance he's the smartest debater. It's impossible to argue against this due to the word "possibly".
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
I think you should just leave words like "possibly" and "likely" out of it altogether, and say, "RT is the smartest debater on DDO."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
9spacekingRomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Bop is on Con to prove their is no possibility that Rational is the smartest debater on DDO and this wasn't proven so argument to Pro. Notice con even said "Just to clarify, I believe RT is definitely one of the smartest debaters on here, but not THE smartest." So he openly admitted his bargument was based on his beliefs meaning it was subjective and cannot be proven. *edit* Pro plagiarized his argument so he forfeits arguments and conduct.
Vote Placed by Haroush 2 years ago
Haroush
9spacekingRomaniiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con absolutely destroyed his opponent on all levels. He rebuttaled Pro's arguments very well and Pro even conceded to that. So, this is an absolute W for Con.