The Instigator
crackrocks
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Seabiscuits account was unjustifiably closed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,594 times Debate No: 17718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (9)

 

crackrocks

Pro

You are all extremely closed minded and intolerant.
thett3

Con

Thank crackrocks for istarting this challenge. Since my Opponent has failed to define what qualifies as "justified" I will make the argument that if it can be proven that Seabiscuit caused more harm than good on this website, than he was justifiably banned. I will cut right to the chase.

Seabiscuit was a vote bomber!

After defeating him in our debate over whether or not gay men should be forced to use the womans restroom[1], Seabiscuit voted on one of my debates[2] with the reason for decision as "argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro." I PMed him about it, and this is what he said:

"Cost v. justice solidified my decision. Also I personally think your a bad debater. But I can assure that it in no way effected my decision this round." Ok, one major problem with that reason for decision. Cost v. Justice was an argument that supported my side. When I called him out on it he, of course, did not respond.

Of course, I'm not the only one who thinks this was a votebomb. If you look in the comments, you can see the member Condradiction calling out seabiscuit for his votebombing, and Bruteapologetia countered it. So there was a popular consensus that this was a votebomb.

Of course, he did not only do this to me. I will link a forum topic, that contains a discussion of seabiscuits vote bombing.[3]. He also Voted against mongeese and double_R based on personal grudges against them.[4][5]. I think I have given enough evidence to show that Seabiscuit was a votebomber, and was thus justly banned.

Sea biscuit was a jerk

Of course, this is not enough of a reason alone to ban him, however it helps to justify the decision. Here is a quote from a message he sent to Double_R ""You should change your sexual orientation to interested in men, cause your stupid and gay."[3]. Also, you can see based on my debate with him that he is very homophobic, and if you read the comments you'll see more evidence of his meanness.

Sea biscuit contributed nothing

Nothing of any value came from Seabiscuits debates, and he was not a contributing member of the site. Thus, the mods were justified in banning him because he did harm, but did no good.

I strongly urge a Con vote, and greatly look forward to my Opponents reply.

Sources:

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...
4. http://www.debate.org...
5. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
crackrocks

Pro

I of course would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
On Contributing nothing.
DDO is a venue through which discourse is supposed to occur, and as such for an individual or group of individuals with certain antagonisms to render reticent a member which embodies those certain antagonisms is to betray the dogma of the institution itself. There is a sense in which people should reject anti- egalitarian notions of inequality, fairness (the lack thereof rather), utility, etc. etc. However, it would be counter-intuitive to render the cognitive capacity of human agency restricted to a certain narrow prerogative of some arbitrary set of values in a certain time and place. This is a concept Seabiscuit understands. and instead of allowing the indoctrination of certain bourgeois traditions he destroys the scope on which we are rendered ideologically stalemated, and encourages people not to think like the culture in which we are conditioned but rather to think for ourselves.

On vote bombing- 2. Both sides of debate under the accepted norms ultimately rely on judge intervention. Because a judge is asked to vote on the truth value of a position, it assumes that he or she knows everything, because arguments not brought up in the round must also be evaluated in order to deduce the truth of a statement. This ultimately pushes the actual debate to a periphery, as it no longer matters what is said in the round, only what the judge thinks about the resolution. Therefore to logically prove the inherency of an issue would be pointless, because there will always be a narrow scope of what is believed to be happening versus another narrow scope saying the opposite. Therefore it would be impossible for any criterion on which we are voting to be "wrong".
Furthermore here is one of Seabiscuits RFD's which claim to be a vote bomb. "All seven points go to Pro. Hermeneutics tell us that there is absolutely no such thing as misinterpretation, and that's the idea that I got from Pros rebuttal. Con's contention 2 was completely irrelevant of course there is a potential for mishandling the risk being higher or lower garners you no offense seeing as how and weapon poses the same risk, I agree with Pro dropping that argument cause it was stupid. Pro is a champ and deserves to win." This (I would say) was a much more legitimate RFD then the some of his constituency.
Furthermore Thett3 is guilty of the same offense (http://www.debate.org...) where he vote bombed one of Seabiscuits debate. This was obviously in retaliation to Seabiscuit but the principle remains. I'm not suggesting that we delete Thett3's account rather resuscitate Seabiscuits.

On being a Jerk- That alone isn't really enough to delete someone's account, and he wasn't a jerk to everyone, just Double_R thett3 and Mongonese, and mostly just Double_R, cause he's a fascist.

There is no reason why I need any offense on the side of Pro seeing as how Con is defending the proposition that the action should have been taken, while Pro is arguing that no action should have been taken.
thett3

Con

Contributed nothing

Pro completely misses the argument here. I wasn't advocating banning seabiscuit for contributing nothing, rather I was stating that since seabiscuit contributed harm, yet no good to the site the mods were justified in banning him. Pro tries quite eloquently to show how seabiscuit contributed to the site by:

" and instead of allowing the indoctrination of certain bourgeois traditions he destroys the scope on which we are rendered ideologically stalemated, and encourages people not to think like the culture in which we are conditioned but rather to think for ourselves."

Ok. Unfortunately, Pro has given absolutely no evidence or examples of how seabiscuit caused us to all challenge our values and throw of the indoctrination so despite his impressive vocabulary, this point falls very quickly under scrutiny.

Vote Bombing

Pro says that:

"Because a judge is asked to vote on the truth value of a position, it assumes that he or she knows everything, because arguments not brought up in the round must also be evaluated in order to deduce the truth of a statement. This ultimately pushes the actual debate to a periphery, as it no longer matters what is said in the round, only what the judge thinks about the resolution."

Actually that is completely and utterly false. Voting is about who made the better arguments DURING the round. NOT what the judge personally believes. As proof of this, here is a quote from Andromeda_Z regarding voting (posted in the DDO orientation thread)[1]:

"Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include:

Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters.
Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round.
Comments made by other members of the site."

So Pro's idea on the purpose of voting is completely off.

Pro completely ignores the example of the debat seabiscuit votebombed me in, completely ignores the popular consensus that it was a votebomb, and completely ignored seabiscuits complete inability to justify his RFD.

Also extend the Double_R examples.

Pro responds to one example of seabiscuits votebombing, however he mentioned in the RFD that Pro dropped an argument. Even if seabiscuit thought it was stupid, it doesn't matter because it was dropped and is thus treated as a concession. So once again, seabiscuits votebombing has been proven.

Also, Pro accuses me of votebombing. 1. Ad hom., we are not discussing me. 2. It isn;t a votebomb because if you actually read the debate you'll see that seabiscuit did not even make an argument until the last round (arguments), Danielles case was much better formatted and seabiscuit made many spelling mistakes (like "rebuddle" instead of rebuttal.) (S/G). And Danielle used 9 sources, seabiscuit used one (sources). I gave seabiscuit the conduct because Danielle forfeited. This was not a votebomb.
Pro concedes that Seabiscuit was a jerk, so extend the fact that he harmed the site but contributed nothing.
New Argument:
Seabiscuit was most likely a multi-accounter, which is against the rules.

As I don't have the IP addresses of seabiscuit, I cannot say for certain but I will give compelling evidence that seabiscuit had a multi account who is debating me right now. Look at crackrocks account. First of all, he is not even friends with Seabiscuit. How could pro know so much about seabiscuit if she does not know him? Unless of course, she is him. Also, Pro has consitently voted on seabiscuits debates in his favor. Look at my debate with seabiscuit over gays in the womans bathrooms. Also look at the debate seabiscuit had with danielle, and crackrocks is seen voting for seabiscuit on this as well.

In conclusion, vote Con.

Source:

1. http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 2
crackrocks

Pro

First and foremost, thank you for calling my vocabulary elegant.

Here are some examples of the dogma's he tried to secularize.
"...that liberty, property, and morality are just temporal assertions in one particular time and place and have no legitimate grounds in terms of a real phenomenological argument." (http://www.debate.org...)

" The "progressively" egalitarian collective, have been forcing this leveling mechanism where, all people regardless of there complacent prerogative are for some reason equaled by the destitute, that through there oppression are conditioned to obtain there own astute acumen."
(http://www.debate.org...)

Furthermore, Seabiscuits first debate "Men are smarter then women" (http://www.debate.org...) The entire debate was over accepting the norms, we have been conditioned to believe, versus a more objective un-indoctrinated truth, and even if men truly aren't smarter then women, at the very least it removes the impression that extremism has kept ethical debates packaged within, in a way that makes it impossible for the realm of discursiveness to deviate from with any seriousness.

To say that he contributed nothing is unbelievably offensive when it's obvious that quite the opposite is true.

On vote bombing

(1)No matter what the con census is on Seabiscuit as a Vote bomber if you extend the analysis on voting. It will be abundantly clear that it is impossible to vote through an impartial sentiment, And all decisions are completely subjective. This notion went dropped in my last speech, and was only answered by a regurgitation of the rules. But the former presupposes that the an objective conclusion can be reached which is the logical premise which I have destroyed. Therefore, although it may seem Seabiscuits conclusions were illogical, they were grounded in as much fact and objectivity as any other voting conclusion. This went dropped in the last speech so please take this into consideration when voting.
(2)Vote bombing isn't enough to delete someones account, as i have stated Thett3, and Man_is_good are both guilty of vote bombing if you check the (http://www.debate.org...)
Thett3 even made it clear it was personal by smugly quoting "argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro." Although i think he recently changed it to avoid losing this debate.

On his new argument. The multi-accounting was discussed privately with one of the administrators of the site. I'm Seabiscuits sister, and the other account (skateall24) is a personal friend of Seabiscuits who doesn't have a computer at home. He got both of us into the site and I expect this argument will be dropped in the next round.
thett3

Con

I thank my Opponent for giving my the chance to debate this.

On Contributing nothing:

Pro has given us some quotes from Seabiscuit, to show how he tries to "secularize dogma". All these quotes show is that seabiscuit had a large vocabulary, which he did. However the very evidence my Opponent herself links verifies my claim! Look at the first debate linked by Pro. Here is seabiscuits enitre final round:

"If you are going to vote, after reading all this, you should be able to make your decision regardless of my rebuttal." [1]

During this debate, Sea-biscuit completely ignored his Opponents arguments, and as I've said before, only managed to show off his impressive vocabulary. Four of the five voters in that debate specified that they voted based on the fact that seabiscuit completely ignored his Opponent.

Double_R's (who seabiscuit later votebombed in revenge) RFD essentially sums up the debate, and if the judges have any questions I encourage them to view the debate in its entirety.

"Pro quite amazingly ignored nearly every peice of Con's case. All Pro did was try to show that Con's case was not enough to affirm his resolution which was not at all successful. Con may have had the BoP but that doesn't mean that Pro can just sit back and say "not good enough" to each argument and expect a win."

As stated before, seabiscuits contributations to this site were non existent.

The second example given by Pro show us, once again, seabiscuits excellent vocab. However, roughly translated into common English, the statement reads as "the progressive collection of those supporting equality have been forcing this leveling where all people despite their self-satisfied privileges are for some reason forced by the poor that through oppression are conditioned to obtain there own astute abilities." This statement not only makes no sense (and if you do not believe my definitions, I encourage you to look them up yourself), it had very, very little to do with the topic at hand, and utterly failed to support seabisuits "argument"

Seabiscuits first debate did not challenge dogma, people argue over which sex is more intelligent all the time.

Vote Bombing:

Pro again tries to say that voting is subjective. Look at the rules of this site that I have shown, and you'll see that it is NOT. Pro ignores my example of how seabiscut's justification for his voting decision supported MY side, thus showing even more that this was a votebomb. Pro says that an impartial vote is not possible. That may be true, but voting on your personal opinion of a person is quite clearly a vote-bomb. She has dropped every single example given of Seabiscuits votebombing, so please extend them all.

Pro also once again charges me with revenge-bombing seabiscuit. Pro claims that my RFD was "argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro." and that I have recently changed it. Pro is either mistaken, or down-right lying. Look at my vote on that debate (men vs. women) and you'll see that it was cast 3 days ago, before this debate started.

Multi-accounting:

Pro claims that she is not a multi-account of Seabiscuit, but rather his sister. Since neither of us can empirically prove our claims, I ask the judges to vote on whichever one is more logical. I will now show why my theory is more logical.

This account was only instigated 3 debates, the minimum required to vote[2]. All three could be considered spam debates. This account voted for seabiscuit on all of his debates. The arguments provided by this account prior to this debated would all be consistent with the argumentation of a troll (if you disbelieve this, please by all means look at my Opponents account.) The logical thing to believe is that this is either A: An account created by seabiscuit in order to troll, thus justifying his banning. Or B: This was an account created by seabiscuit to vote him up in all his debates (which he did), thus justify his banning.

Conclusion


I have shown that Seabiscuit contributed nothing, votebombed, was a jerk, and likely had a multi-account to troll/votebomb his debates. Recall that the resolution states "unjustifiably", not "unjustly". Therefore, if a justification exists, which I have shown that it has, than this resolution is negated. Even if you believe my opponent, and think that seabiscuit was unjustly banned, he was not unjustifiably banned. Please vote Con.


Voters

Conduct: Tie please, we were both fine
S/G: Please put either a tie, or vote for me. My Oponent had a few formatting and grammar mistakes but nothing major.
Arguments: I have convincingly shown that the was a justification behind Seabiscuits banning.
Sources: Please put a tie, or vote for me because I used slightly more sources than my Opponent.

Sources:

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
(cont from RFD) sources that supported his claim. Pro blames thett3 of votebombing and links to a debate that Pro had forfeited. Pro's sources support Con's side more than his own.
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
@ rockylightning, Literally 100% of his arguments were ad hom the entire debate was about that.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
There was no vote-bomb...O.O
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
I'd like to get a counter for the vote bomb.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Seraine, your definitely not the only one. I think Thett3 made a very clear case for this helped by Crackrocks "I'm his sister" claim. Sure ok.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Seraine, I have my suspicions too...
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Am I the only one who thinks crackrocks is Seabiscuit?

Unfortunate that Seabiscuit named his account Seabiscuit. Seabiscuit was an honorable horse:(
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
Probably within the hour
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
great, any idea how long it'll take you?
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
Ima cookin a somethin up
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
MassDebator255
crackrocksthett3Tied
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: vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
crackrocksthett3Tied
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 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: Args to Con for clearly showing that seabiscuit contributed more harm than good and for showing that his method of voting based on personal preferences is flawed as he was supposed to vote on who made the better argument. Spelling and Grammar to Con for better and more readable presentation. Conduct to Con because Pro ad-homed a lot of other people who were completely uninvolved in the discussion calling them fascists etc. Sources to Con for actually providing (cont in comments section)
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
crackrocksthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro accused Con of vote bombing, which is ridiculous since the debate concerns Seabiscuit's account, not thett. In addition, Pro failed to articulate, despite "her" impressive vocabulary, anything beyond praise for Seabiscuit, which thett3 showed to be false. As for waylon fairbank's vote, it should be noted that Con's arguments, of vote-bombing and mutli-accounting (which has not been empirically confirmed) are two very good reasons to why Seabiscuit's account was closed.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
crackrocksthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro ad hom. Con wins hands down.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
crackrocksthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more convincing and wrote his arguments in an much more professional manner.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
crackrocksthett3Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments amounted to little more than him/her flaunting an extensive vocabulary. Furthermore, Con refuted Pro's case fairly well. At least well enough to get the argument vote.
Vote Placed by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
crackrocksthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: All of Thett3's arguments weren't violations worthy of expulsion. Moreover, I hate when fools tell me at the end of their debate how I should vote. For me, it automatically costs them conduct as it insults my intelligence, and makes me consider how valid their arguments were after all.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
crackrocksthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was convincing in that every opinion is valid, and con's "contribution" point seemed a little too subjective to stand. What did merit much stronger rebuttal by pro, and ultimately won the debate for con, was that it didn't matter what you say, but how you say it. While pro did prove others are guilty of the same thing, all con needed to show was a "justification," no matter how inconsistently applied. Neg win.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
crackrocksthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tries to justify Seabuscuits trolling by suggesting that it encourages us to "think for ourselves". This point is laughable. This is a debate site, people would not be here if they did not think for themselves. Pros arguments were weak at best and he... or rather "she" tries to justify votebombing by suggesting that there is no such thing as votebombing. There wouldn't be a word for it if that was the case. Con dismantled Pros arguments quite convincingly.