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

Insanity

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:22:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, so my friend Lance recently joined DDO. He is a friend from real life and he tried to start a blog too.

Anyways, as soon as he joined, all of the usual suspects started attacking him.

They actually think that he is a multi account of me. I mean this is just getting ridiculous.

000ike and Nonentity are making this website so unwelcoming that any new conservative member just gets assaulted with all kinds of allegations.

Lance is already thinking about leaving.

On top of this, they call any vote against them biased. And, they all go and vote on each other's debates and then accuse conservatives of doing the exact thing they are guilty of.

We need to consider banning Nonentity and 000ike for degrading this site. It is utter insanity.

I think we need to seriously consider banning both of these members before they force all of the conservatives to leave this site.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:24:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol thank you for this thread.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:26:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?

LOL, you are doing exactly the same thing in this post that you are accusing them of doing.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:28:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:26:00 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?

LOL, you are doing exactly the same thing in this post that you are accusing them of doing.

I'm not name calling.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:28:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:28:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:26:00 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?

LOL, you are doing exactly the same thing in this post that you are accusing them of doing.

I'm not name calling.

You are using an ad hominem attack.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:29:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:25:28 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
I am not sure that I have seen 000ike and nonentity do anything wrong. Could you elaborate more?

Other than showing themselves to be idiots, they are already accusing my friend of multi accounting.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:29:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:26:00 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?

LOL, you are doing exactly the same thing in this post that you are accusing them of doing.

In forums they just insult and accuse me and Jim of:

Bad voting (sometimes rightfully though)
Multi accounting (all false so far, that is a reason my grandpa left)

So LK is correct, but in debates these 2 are great!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:28:41 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:28:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:26:00 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?

LOL, you are doing exactly the same thing in this post that you are accusing them of doing.

I'm not name calling.

You are using an ad hominem attack.

Not really. I'm not attacking anybody personally, simply their lack of evidence.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:31:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:29:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:28 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
I am not sure that I have seen 000ike and nonentity do anything wrong. Could you elaborate more?


Other than showing themselves to be idiots, they are already accusing my friend of multi accounting.

Well, I have to admit that it is odd that he joined the site specifically so that he could vote on your debate. I think F_16_Fighting_Falcon made the same observation in another thread. Also, you cannot ban people from this site just because they are idiots.

Overall, I am not sure that you have a strong enough case to have them banned.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:32:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:31:08 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:29:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:28 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
I am not sure that I have seen 000ike and nonentity do anything wrong. Could you elaborate more?


Other than showing themselves to be idiots, they are already accusing my friend of multi accounting.

Well, I have to admit that it is odd that he joined the site specifically so that he could vote on your debate. I think F_16_Fighting_Falcon made the same observation in another thread. Also, you cannot ban people from this site just because they are idiots.

Overall, I am not sure that you have a strong enough case to have them banned.

That is not why he joined. He joined so he can debate. He has said as much himself.

And, the only reason I said they should be banned is because they have asked for me to be banned in the past.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:34:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:32:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:31:08 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:29:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:28 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
I am not sure that I have seen 000ike and nonentity do anything wrong. Could you elaborate more?


Other than showing themselves to be idiots, they are already accusing my friend of multi accounting.

Well, I have to admit that it is odd that he joined the site specifically so that he could vote on your debate. I think F_16_Fighting_Falcon made the same observation in another thread. Also, you cannot ban people from this site just because they are idiots.

Overall, I am not sure that you have a strong enough case to have them banned.


That is not why he joined. He joined so he can debate. He has said as much himself.

And, the only reason I said they should be banned is because they have asked for me to be banned in the past.

Yeah they want me banned too...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:39:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:32:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:31:08 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:29:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:28 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
I am not sure that I have seen 000ike and nonentity do anything wrong. Could you elaborate more?


Other than showing themselves to be idiots, they are already accusing my friend of multi accounting.

Well, I have to admit that it is odd that he joined the site specifically so that he could vote on your debate. I think F_16_Fighting_Falcon made the same observation in another thread. Also, you cannot ban people from this site just because they are idiots.

Overall, I am not sure that you have a strong enough case to have them banned.


That is not why he joined. He joined so he can debate. He has said as much himself.

This is what he said: "I did three debates so I could vote on other people's debates. It is a requirement that you have three debates that you can vote on debates."

Here are the three debates that he entered in:

Best Pun Debate

Funniest Short Video Debate

Newt Gingrich should be president.

All three debates are one-round debates that required no effort to complete. In addition, the first two debates are completely frivolous. The last one could have been interesting, but this was the extent of his argument:

Newt Gingrich would be a very good president. He has a plan to cut taxes.

Cutting taxes helps the economy because it lets working people keep more of THEIR money.

Small businesses can expand and hire more workers witht these tax cuts. Newt Gingrich has a plan to create jobs and grow the economy.

Not only does he have a plan, but he has done it before. Newt Gingrich would be a good president.

Good luck on whoever accepts this debate!


I am sorry, but that does not sound like someone who wants to debate seriously. I think it is telling that his first goal was to make sure that he could vote on debates. If he wanted to debate important issues, why did he not do real, substantive debates?

And, the only reason I said they should be banned is because they have asked for me to be banned in the past.

Prove that you are a better man than those buffoons and ignore them.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:41:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:39:40 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:32:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:31:08 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:29:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:28 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
I am not sure that I have seen 000ike and nonentity do anything wrong. Could you elaborate more?


Other than showing themselves to be idiots, they are already accusing my friend of multi accounting.

Well, I have to admit that it is odd that he joined the site specifically so that he could vote on your debate. I think F_16_Fighting_Falcon made the same observation in another thread. Also, you cannot ban people from this site just because they are idiots.

Overall, I am not sure that you have a strong enough case to have them banned.


That is not why he joined. He joined so he can debate. He has said as much himself.

This is what he said: "I did three debates so I could vote on other people's debates. It is a requirement that you have three debates that you can vote on debates."

Here are the three debates that he entered in:

Best Pun Debate

Funniest Short Video Debate

Newt Gingrich should be president.

All three debates are one-round debates that required no effort to complete. In addition, the first two debates are completely frivolous. The last one could have been interesting, but this was the extent of his argument:

Newt Gingrich would be a very good president. He has a plan to cut taxes.

Cutting taxes helps the economy because it lets working people keep more of THEIR money.

Small businesses can expand and hire more workers witht these tax cuts. Newt Gingrich has a plan to create jobs and grow the economy.

Not only does he have a plan, but he has done it before. Newt Gingrich would be a good president.

Good luck on whoever accepts this debate!


I am sorry, but that does not sound like someone who wants to debate seriously. I think it is telling that his first goal was to make sure that he could vote on debates. If he wanted to debate important issues, why did he not do real, substantive debates?

And, the only reason I said they should be banned is because they have asked for me to be banned in the past.

Prove that you are a better man than those buffoons and ignore them.

It seems like he just wanted the ability to vote.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I think every member wants as many abilities as possible when they enter the site.

You'd have to ask him though.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 3:53:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The forum didn't really ween attention from the other one like I though it would.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:15:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 3:29:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:28:41 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:28:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:26:00 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/17/2012 3:25:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What do you expect from leftists who cannot factually back up their views and instead go prancing around name calling?

LOL, you are doing exactly the same thing in this post that you are accusing them of doing.

I'm not name calling.

You are using an ad hominem attack.

Not really. I'm not attacking anybody personally, simply their lack of evidence.

Agreed, you're attacking groups of people on basic generalisations which are so blatantly untrue that one must wonder who you are trying to deceive.

Anyway, I agree that the post by nonentity was uncalled for, but what is this by 000ike? I believe his claim was well substantiated and (although possibly false) has reason to be true (and needed a response, rather than nonentity's who could have been ignored).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:21:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this concludes (in the form of a UN resolution):
This conglomerate of the community of DDO:

Applaud the attempt made by the 3-debate restriction for its attempt to combat "trolling" and improving the standard of voters.

Recognise that it has managed to somewhat combat trolling.

Recognise that the effect it has had on improving the standard of voting as minimal

Hope that an improved standard be put in place or thought of to achieve thes goals with more success

Desire an improved system to combat unreasonable vote

Desire a standard to be put in place to evaluate votes.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...