Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Judicial inquiry of jimtimmy/000ike affair

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

Contra - Unclear
Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
DevonNetzley - Unclear
Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
Ron-Paul - Unclear
Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.

16kadams has a new vote, in case anyone else criticises me for it.

These are all the votes that I have picked up on that are either criticised by others for being not enough detail, or are giving points because of someone else's voting.

If they are named, we can get them to explain or change their vote quicker, and therefore make the debate's points reflective of who won.
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...
#2
Add Post
Forum Moderator
 
2/19/2012 4:01:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

Contra - Unclear
Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
DevonNetzley - Unclear
Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
Ron-Paul - Unclear
Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.


16kadams has a new vote, in case anyone else criticises me for it.

These are all the votes that I have picked up on that are either criticised by others for being not enough detail, or are giving points because of someone else's voting.

If they are named, we can get them to explain or change their vote quicker, and therefore make the debate's points reflective of who won.

This really isn't helping. Send me a PM if you have a proposal.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:02:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My vote was justified to combat other blatant travesties.
"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."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:02:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:02:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
My vote was justified to combat other blatant travesties.

Votebombing is defined in the inquiry.
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
2/19/2012 4:04:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:01:57 PM, Forum Moderator wrote:
At 2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

Contra - Unclear
Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
DevonNetzley - Unclear
Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
Ron-Paul - Unclear
Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.


16kadams has a new vote, in case anyone else criticises me for it.

These are all the votes that I have picked up on that are either criticised by others for being not enough detail, or are giving points because of someone else's voting.

If they are named, we can get them to explain or change their vote quicker, and therefore make the debate's points reflective of who won.

This really isn't helping. Send me a PM if you have a proposal.

The point was to find out which votes are classed as "unjust" or based on unreasonable reasons (e.g. someone else's vote), and get their votes removed from the list. I posted this here to see if there are any that I missed out. Also, this public listing of the people makes it easier to know who is involved with poor voting.
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...
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is what I recommend: Set up a trial like the izbo trial and put the alleged vBombers on trial to see if they truly are vBombers.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
#7
Add Post
Forum Moderator
 
2/19/2012 4:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:02:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:02:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
My vote was justified to combat other blatant travesties.

Votebombing is defined in the inquiry.

that is an inaccurate definition of a vote bomb.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:08:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just my 2 cents, but if you guys really cared to analyze the voting of that debate, then you should join Innomen and his panel, make a decision on which ones were and were not justified and then make a thread about it.

that would give the issue closure, and I don't think either of us would have cause to complain since its an entirely unbias set of individuals making this decision.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There were like 5 real votes on the debate, the remaining of which were votebombs/countervotebombs/inadequate/missing RFDs and unjustified voting on sources and conduct.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:05:43 PM, Forum Moderator wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:02:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:02:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
My vote was justified to combat other blatant travesties.

Votebombing is defined in the inquiry.

that is an inaccurate definition of a vote bomb.

To be honest, I think you're the only one that has that definition of a votebomb. Perhaps, if this is just a semantic issue then instead of searching for "votebombs" we can search for "unjustified voting".
"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
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:11:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:08:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
There were like 5 real votes on the debate, the remaining of which were votebombs/countervotebombs/inadequate/missing RFDs and unjustified voting on sources and conduct.

This, and intelligent judges disagreed on who the victor should be. I tentatively suggested we call it a tie given the close score and the voting volume and the fact that people largely voted along ideological lines.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:12:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:11:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:08:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
There were like 5 real votes on the debate, the remaining of which were votebombs/countervotebombs/inadequate/missing RFDs and unjustified voting on sources and conduct.

This, and intelligent judges disagreed on who the victor should be. I tentatively suggested we call it a tie given the close score and the voting volume and the fact that people largely voted along ideological lines.

This is sort of irrelevant, but how come you didn't vote? I thought you would be one of the first
"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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:18:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
is mine a VB still?!?!
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:19:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:18:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
is mine a VB still?!?!

yes. Your RFD was "reason for args in comments"....and then you wrote nothing. I'm also fairly certain that you didn't read the debate, or at most skimmed it.
"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
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What part of my vote is a vote bomb? I gave an RFD for the Arguments and Sources points. Jim then proceeded to accuse me of vote bombing and got people to "counter" it. So I gave ike conduct points because attacking anyone who votes against you and getting people to "counter" it IS poor conduct.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:21:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:12:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:11:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:08:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
There were like 5 real votes on the debate, the remaining of which were votebombs/countervotebombs/inadequate/missing RFDs and unjustified voting on sources and conduct.

This, and intelligent judges disagreed on who the victor should be. I tentatively suggested we call it a tie given the close score and the voting volume and the fact that people largely voted along ideological lines.

This is sort of irrelevant, but how come you didn't vote? I thought you would be one of the first

It's a very long debate and I read every word of every debate I judge. I also have midterms later this week, like I might get to it but it's work. I also usually provide longer RFDs when the debate is serious.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:25:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:19:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:18:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
is mine a VB still?!?!

yes. Your RFD was "reason for args in comments"....and then you wrote nothing. I'm also fairly certain that you didn't read the debate, or at most skimmed it.

in comments
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:19:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:18:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
is mine a VB still?!?!

yes. Your RFD was "reason for args in comments"....and then you wrote nothing. I'm also fairly certain that you didn't read the debate, or at most skimmed it.

2nd page comments
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:30:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:25:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:19:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:18:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
is mine a VB still?!?!

yes. Your RFD was "reason for args in comments"....and then you wrote nothing. I'm also fairly certain that you didn't read the debate, or at most skimmed it.

in comments

Just curious,..and I'm aware you may just lie, but did you actually read the debate or did you just vote, OR, did you just skim it in 5 minutes?...
"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
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 4:57:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 4:09:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:05:43 PM, Forum Moderator wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:02:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/19/2012 4:02:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
My vote was justified to combat other blatant travesties.

Votebombing is defined in the inquiry.

that is an inaccurate definition of a vote bomb.

To be honest, I think you're the only one that has that definition of a votebomb. Perhaps, if this is just a semantic issue then instead of searching for "votebombs" we can search for "unjustified voting".

I am almost definitely he only person who defines votebomb like hat, and I don't define it as that outside of this inquiry. But having multiple phrases for incredibly similar types of votes which are done from a similar intention is just adding an additional word when it is not needed. Change the phrasing over, but is counter vote bombing unjustified?

Anyway this is just to get all the information down in one place.
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...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

1) Contra - Unclear
2) Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
3) DevonNetzley - Unclear
4) Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
5) Ron-Paul - Unclear
6) Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
7) Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
8) nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
9) LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
10) Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
11) Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.

I will add these:
12) ConservativePolitico - No analysis of arguments
13) Neonix - RFD mostly irrelevant to the debate
14) Multi_Pyrocytophage - No reference to the arguments at all. Just voted based on who used wikipedia.
15) RoyLatham - No reference to any arguments, no justification for sources vote. Shows no indication of having read the debate.
16) StephenHawkins - No analysis of arguments
17) TUF - Voted only on the number of sources. No analysis of arguments.
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points
19) Johnnyboy - Unjustified Conduct point
20) Volkov - Obvious
21) Flash7221 - Only voted based on who used wikipedia
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:25:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

1) Contra - Unclear
2) Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
3) DevonNetzley - Unclear
4) Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
5) Ron-Paul - Unclear
6) Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
7) Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
8) nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
9) LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
10) Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
11) Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.

I will add these:
12) ConservativePolitico - No analysis of arguments
13) Neonix - RFD mostly irrelevant to the debate
14) Multi_Pyrocytophage - No reference to the arguments at all. Just voted based on who used wikipedia.
15) RoyLatham - No reference to any arguments, no justification for sources vote. Shows no indication of having read the debate.
16) StephenHawkins - No analysis of arguments
17) TUF - Voted only on the number of sources. No analysis of arguments.
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points
19) Johnnyboy - Unjustified Conduct point
20) Volkov - Obvious
21) Flash7221 - Only voted based on who used wikipedia

a lot of the rfd are in the comment sections, which are mostly clogged.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:26:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:25:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

1) Contra - Unclear
2) Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
3) DevonNetzley - Unclear
4) Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
5) Ron-Paul - Unclear
6) Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
7) Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
8) nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
9) LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
10) Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
11) Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.

I will add these:
12) ConservativePolitico - No analysis of arguments
13) Neonix - RFD mostly irrelevant to the debate
14) Multi_Pyrocytophage - No reference to the arguments at all. Just voted based on who used wikipedia.
15) RoyLatham - No reference to any arguments, no justification for sources vote. Shows no indication of having read the debate.
16) StephenHawkins - No analysis of arguments
17) TUF - Voted only on the number of sources. No analysis of arguments.
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points
19) Johnnyboy - Unjustified Conduct point
20) Volkov - Obvious
21) Flash7221 - Only voted based on who used wikipedia

a lot of the rfd are in the comment sections, which are mostly clogged.

I made this list after checking the comments section.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I repeat:

At 2/19/2012 4:21:00 PM, nonentity wrote:
What part of my vote is a vote bomb? I gave an RFD for the Arguments and Sources points. Jim then proceeded to accuse me of vote bombing and got people to "counter" it. So I gave ike conduct points because attacking anyone who votes against you and getting people to "counter" it IS poor conduct.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points

Jimtimmy's sources were relevant to the point at hand. 000ike's sources were not and he gave no source for why we should expect African immigrants to be an unbiased subsection of blacks. As Jimtimmy pointed out, we should expect immigrants to the United States from Africa to be on the more intelligent side and 000ike gave no source that showed otherwise.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 2/19/2012 3:59:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Which debate votes are either unclear, blatantly unjustified, or votebombs? All Votebombs will be votes where points are given based upon another user's voting.

1) Contra - Unclear
2) Ober_Herr - Votebomb (of 6 points) against an unclear vote.
3) DevonNetzley - Unclear
4) Man-is-good - votebomb (of 3 points) against unclear vote.
5) Ron-Paul - Unclear
6) Hardcore.Pwnography - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
7) Extremely-Far-Right - Votebomb (of 5 points) against unclear vote.
8) nonentity - votebomb (of 6 points) against "jim and his minion's blatant vote-bombing."
9) LordKnukle - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other Votebombs.
10) Viper-King - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.
11) Deathbeforedishonour - votebomb (of 7 points) to counter other votebombs.

I will add these:
12) ConservativePolitico - No analysis of arguments
13) Neonix - RFD mostly irrelevant to the debate
14) Multi_Pyrocytophage - No reference to the arguments at all. Just voted based on who used wikipedia.
15) RoyLatham - No reference to any arguments, no justification for sources vote. Shows no indication of having read the debate.
16) StephenHawkins - No analysis of arguments
17) TUF - Voted only on the number of sources. No analysis of arguments.
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points
19) Johnnyboy - Unjustified Conduct point
20) Volkov - Obvious
21) Flash7221 - Only voted based on who used wikipedia

where am I?
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:34:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:29:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points

Jimtimmy's sources were relevant to the point at hand. 000ike's sources were not and he gave no source for why we should expect African immigrants to be an unbiased subsection of blacks. As Jimtimmy pointed out, we should expect immigrants to the United States from Africa to be on the more intelligent side and 000ike gave no source that showed otherwise.

wait, so "I" have to show a source refuting a claim that Jimtimmy did not provide a source for?... Okay, I know, you know, and anyone reading this knows what's wrong with that, so I won't bother myself with it.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:29:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points

Jimtimmy's sources were relevant to the point at hand. 000ike's sources were not and he gave no source for why we should expect African immigrants to be an unbiased subsection of blacks. As Jimtimmy pointed out, we should expect immigrants to the United States from Africa to be on the more intelligent side and 000ike gave no source that showed otherwise.

JimTimmy made claims for which Ike demanded sources. Why would Ike need sources to refute jimmy's unsourced claims?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:34:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/19/2012 5:29:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/19/2012 5:21:46 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
18) Reasoning - Unjustified sources points

Jimtimmy's sources were relevant to the point at hand. 000ike's sources were not and he gave no source for why we should expect African immigrants to be an unbiased subsection of blacks. As Jimtimmy pointed out, we should expect immigrants to the United States from Africa to be on the more intelligent side and 000ike gave no source that showed otherwise.

wait, so "I" have to show a source refuting a claim that Jimtimmy did not provide a source for?... Okay, I know, you know, and anyone reading this knows what's wrong with that, so I won't bother myself with it.

Not everything needs to be sourced if the premises make sense and it is logically valid.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:39:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:29:55 PM, 16kadams wrote:

where am I?

I'd say you at least put some effort into it the second time you voted but still no analysis as to *why* Pro's points beat Con's.