Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Favorite RFD

Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 12:48:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is your favorite RFD that you have seen?

In the Mr.Infidel v. Crypto247 http://www.debate.org...
randolph7 states, "Best arguments ever! Not even argumentum ad obama could save this one."

Davididit v. kohai http://www.debate.org...
Blackvoid says, "Kohai's masterful use of ctrl C and ctrl V were not enough this time."

Discuss your favorite RFD's.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 12:57:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think this is a great idea. I was going to say Blackvoid's as well, but you already had it. In fact, it was my sig for a while until I changed to the current one of Mikee and Rocky. There are a lot of really funny RFDs. I'll post one when I see the next Oscar-winning RFD.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 1:01:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
LOL. Thanks. There are a lot of funny RFD's.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:52:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"CirRk, you are a sack of s­h­it.

This is a very easy debate to judge. You wait until the last round to weigh your arguments, giving LF no possible rebuttal. Since I ignore new arguments brought up in the last round, you have no weighing mechanism, and the round goes default to LF.

I could have voted on other issues dealing with evidence and such, but the fact that you don't ascribe your case any weight till its too late for LF to contest it is the easier place to vote.

LF is also completely right that you made this is a "nu-uh" "ya-huh" debate. Everything that comes out of your mouth is just lip service. Like your GDP vs HDI argument or stability with/without NATO occupation.

Its like, what would it take for LF to make a correct argument? You just sit around hypothesizing about possible futures that sound bad.

You also focus on frivolous issues like the definition of "terrorism", as if it matters if radicals kill innocent americans or innocent arabs. What are you doing wasting your time with this distinction? Just taking up LF's space?

I also laughed pretty hard when you said the US had no major involvement in the middle east before 911. You are either incredibly stupid, or a sack of s­­hit for making this argument. LF's rebuttal to this was significantly longer than your "one liner", forcing him to allocate excessive space to the topic which you later dropped.

Yeah yeah that's really fair. You just slam your opponent with a bunch of arguments that take him longer to rebut than you take to construct. But you didn't do it on purpose I'm sure, even though its your fu­ck­ing signature strategy. Zzzzzzzz

So add all these to my list of reasons why CirRk is a dishonest debater."


-Do I even have to say who wrote this?
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 9:48:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 1:52:43 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
"CirRk, you are a sack of s­h­it.

This is a very easy debate to judge. You wait until the last round to weigh your arguments, giving LF no possible rebuttal. Since I ignore new arguments brought up in the last round, you have no weighing mechanism, and the round goes default to LF.

I could have voted on other issues dealing with evidence and such, but the fact that you don't ascribe your case any weight till its too late for LF to contest it is the easier place to vote.

LF is also completely right that you made this is a "nu-uh" "ya-huh" debate. Everything that comes out of your mouth is just lip service. Like your GDP vs HDI argument or stability with/without NATO occupation.

Its like, what would it take for LF to make a correct argument? You just sit around hypothesizing about possible futures that sound bad.

You also focus on frivolous issues like the definition of "terrorism", as if it matters if radicals kill innocent americans or innocent arabs. What are you doing wasting your time with this distinction? Just taking up LF's space?

I also laughed pretty hard when you said the US had no major involvement in the middle east before 911. You are either incredibly stupid, or a sack of s­­hit for making this argument. LF's rebuttal to this was significantly longer than your "one liner", forcing him to allocate excessive space to the topic which you later dropped.

Yeah yeah that's really fair. You just slam your opponent with a bunch of arguments that take him longer to rebut than you take to construct. But you didn't do it on purpose I'm sure, even though its your fu­ck­ing signature strategy. Zzzzzzzz

So add all these to my list of reasons why CirRk is a dishonest debater."


-Do I even have to say who wrote this?

LOL! let me guess, izbo10?
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 9:49:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 9:48:34 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:52:43 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
"CirRk, you are a sack of s­h­it.

This is a very easy debate to judge. You wait until the last round to weigh your arguments, giving LF no possible rebuttal. Since I ignore new arguments brought up in the last round, you have no weighing mechanism, and the round goes default to LF.

I could have voted on other issues dealing with evidence and such, but the fact that you don't ascribe your case any weight till its too late for LF to contest it is the easier place to vote.

LF is also completely right that you made this is a "nu-uh" "ya-huh" debate. Everything that comes out of your mouth is just lip service. Like your GDP vs HDI argument or stability with/without NATO occupation.

Its like, what would it take for LF to make a correct argument? You just sit around hypothesizing about possible futures that sound bad.

You also focus on frivolous issues like the definition of "terrorism", as if it matters if radicals kill innocent americans or innocent arabs. What are you doing wasting your time with this distinction? Just taking up LF's space?

I also laughed pretty hard when you said the US had no major involvement in the middle east before 911. You are either incredibly stupid, or a sack of s­­hit for making this argument. LF's rebuttal to this was significantly longer than your "one liner", forcing him to allocate excessive space to the topic which you later dropped.

Yeah yeah that's really fair. You just slam your opponent with a bunch of arguments that take him longer to rebut than you take to construct. But you didn't do it on purpose I'm sure, even though its your fu­ck­ing signature strategy. Zzzzzzzz

So add all these to my list of reasons why CirRk is a dishonest debater."


-Do I even have to say who wrote this?

LOL! let me guess, izbo10?
Is it Sieben?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 9:50:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 9:49:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/23/2011 9:48:34 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/23/2011 1:52:43 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
"CirRk, you are a sack of s­h­it.

This is a very easy debate to judge. You wait until the last round to weigh your arguments, giving LF no possible rebuttal. Since I ignore new arguments brought up in the last round, you have no weighing mechanism, and the round goes default to LF.

I could have voted on other issues dealing with evidence and such, but the fact that you don't ascribe your case any weight till its too late for LF to contest it is the easier place to vote.

LF is also completely right that you made this is a "nu-uh" "ya-huh" debate. Everything that comes out of your mouth is just lip service. Like your GDP vs HDI argument or stability with/without NATO occupation.

Its like, what would it take for LF to make a correct argument? You just sit around hypothesizing about possible futures that sound bad.

You also focus on frivolous issues like the definition of "terrorism", as if it matters if radicals kill innocent americans or innocent arabs. What are you doing wasting your time with this distinction? Just taking up LF's space?

I also laughed pretty hard when you said the US had no major involvement in the middle east before 911. You are either incredibly stupid, or a sack of s­­hit for making this argument. LF's rebuttal to this was significantly longer than your "one liner", forcing him to allocate excessive space to the topic which you later dropped.

Yeah yeah that's really fair. You just slam your opponent with a bunch of arguments that take him longer to rebut than you take to construct. But you didn't do it on purpose I'm sure, even though its your fu­ck­ing signature strategy. Zzzzzzzz

So add all these to my list of reasons why CirRk is a dishonest debater."


-Do I even have to say who wrote this?

LOL! let me guess, izbo10?
Is it Sieben?

It ma also be ask bob.

Ps. Can we have the link to the debate for fulll context and LOL!
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 11:03:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This one by darkkermit deserves a mention on my last debate posted in my sig:

Reasons for voting decision: I was utterly and completely disgusted by CON and is was quite painful to read the entire thing despite its shortness.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 11:19:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 11:17:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
MiG is right. It was Sieben.

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

But really, its an accurate RFD. You can tell he read the debate.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:49:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 11:19:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:17:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
MiG is right. It was Sieben.

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

But really, its an accurate RFD. You can tell he read the debate.

Wow, that is a fairly accurate RFD. And quite hilarious to say the least.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 2:36:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 11:19:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:17:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
MiG is right. It was Sieben.

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

But really, its an accurate RFD. You can tell he read the debate.

That RFD wasnt accurate at all. Impact analysis/weighing arguments in the last round is 100% legit. If you cant do a comparative analysis in the last round, wtf are you allowed to do?

I havent read the whole debate, but if THAT is at the top of the RFD, I have a hard time taking the judge seriously.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 2:48:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 2:36:31 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:19:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:17:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
MiG is right. It was Sieben.

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

But really, its an accurate RFD. You can tell he read the debate.

That RFD wasnt accurate at all. Impact analysis/weighing arguments in the last round is 100% legit. If you cant do a comparative analysis in the last round, wtf are you allowed to do?

I havent read the whole debate, but if THAT is at the top of the RFD, I have a hard time taking the judge seriously.

Yeah he and some other guy had a comment war about exactly what you brought up.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 2:56:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 2:48:08 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/24/2011 2:36:31 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:19:16 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:17:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
MiG is right. It was Sieben.

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

But really, its an accurate RFD. You can tell he read the debate.

That RFD wasnt accurate at all. Impact analysis/weighing arguments in the last round is 100% legit. If you cant do a comparative analysis in the last round, wtf are you allowed to do?

I havent read the whole debate, but if THAT is at the top of the RFD, I have a hard time taking the judge seriously.

Yeah he and some other guy had a comment war about exactly what you brought up.

Theres really nothing to war about. If comparative analysis in the final round is considered unfair, then there is absolutely nothing the final round can say beside just repeating what has already been said- which ads nothing to the debate.

Thats just really dumb and it pisses me off the guy would act so superior and lead off with such a poor understanding of debate.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 2:56:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It was more about Con exaggerating all his impacts in the last round though. Like, Con said in R2 that nukes would "proliferate" and that there's be a "higher probability". Then in the last round he turned that into "Nuke War DA we're all gonna die" which is where Sieben's problem was.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:27:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 2:56:52 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
It was more about Con exaggerating all his impacts in the last round though. Like, Con said in R2 that nukes would "proliferate" and that there's be a "higher probability". Then in the last round he turned that into "Nuke War DA we're all gonna die" which is where Sieben's problem was.

It does look like he did a less than stellar impact set up in his R1, and I probably wouldnt have given him all the claims he made in his closing because they werent all there earlier in the debate. But to say "Since I ignore new arguments brought up in the last round, you have no weighing mechanism, and the round goes default to LF" is just really really stupid.
smartyskirt
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 12:29:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Reasons for voting decision: I had no intention of voting on this debate, being the agnostic I am, or atheist, whatever you want to call it, but I decided to vote on this debate anyway. Both pro and con showed excellent debates and rebuttals, but I am going to hand my vote to pro