Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You Can't Be Serious

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This unjust voting has really got to stop.

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

Let's take a look at both of the votes here:

The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

The second vote is just a tad longer but still the same utter bullsh!t:

"The Resolution was about whether or not the United States had justification going to war. Through use of human rights examples, utilitarian examples and statistics Pro made a case as to why the United States was justified in going to war. Con's case was not convincing as it did not go back to the resolution enough. He got caught up in his own arguments and failed to say why the United States should NOT have gone into Iraq."

Let's dissect this RFD sentence by sentence.

1. "The Resolution was about whether or not the United States had justification going to war."

Yes.

2. "Through use of human rights examples, utilitarian examples and statistics Pro made a case as to why the United States was justified in going to war."

Obviously CP never read the frickin' debate. All of my opponent's statistics for major human rights abuses happened in the 1980s and the 1990s. Through my "utilitarianism is forward looking point" all of these statistics became moot and irrelevant immediately. My opponent then tried to bring up that the abuses were still happening but his first link showed that there were reports of prior abuse and his second link showed that there were reports of domestic abuse. The first point is moot because of the utilitarianism refutation and the second point doesn't justify foreign intervention (lol.)

3. "Con's case was not convincing as it did not go back to the resolution enough. He got caught up in his own arguments and failed to say why the United States should NOT have gone into Iraq."

The BOP was on my opponent- not myself. I did not have to provide a case for why the US was justified in going to war; I had to refute my opponent's case.

As well, CP even fails to justify how I got caught up in my own arguments and was not convincing.
______

My opponent actually praised the first voter for "objective about the debate." Lol wut?

I would be perfectly fine with a vote against me as long as it doesn't contain blatant vote bombs, hasty generalizations, saying that I didn't refute something with no justification, and obviously not reading the debate before voting.

Just to be clear: THIS IS IN NO WAY an attack on my opponent. This is an attack on unfair voting.
"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."
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:27:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I grant you that many people give fantastically stupid RFD's, but DDO allows everyone the equal opportunity to cast stupid ballots. All I can say is... it is what it is. Debate anonymously for the insight gained for the experience, not for the ego boost of winning (although winning is nice, fo' sho').
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:33:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you new here sir? Welcome to DDO. People will vote however they want, so long as their RFDs have reason. It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. It you feel strongly that their votes were bogus, then get a 3rd opinion, PM some people to take a look at the debate for you. There couldn't be worse idea than broadcasting this insular issue on the forums.

On a side note, it serves you right to get inaccurate and poorly thought out votes, you've been giving them to other people for how long now? I still remember your VB on my debate with Jimtimmy.
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:36:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:33:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Are you new here sir? Welcome to DDO. People will vote however they want, so long as their RFDs have reason. It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. It you feel strongly that their votes were bogus, then get a 3rd opinion, PM some people to take a look at the debate for you. There couldn't be worse idea than broadcasting this insular issue on the forums.

On a side note, it serves you right to get inaccurate and poorly thought out votes, you've been giving them to other people for how long now? I still remember your VB on my debate with Jimtimmy.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:39:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:33:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Are you new here sir? Welcome to DDO. People will vote however they want, so long as their RFDs have reason. It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. It you feel strongly that their votes were bogus, then get a 3rd opinion, PM some people to take a look at the debate for you. There couldn't be worse idea than broadcasting this insular issue on the forums.

I want people on the forums to see some of the stupidity that the members who voted on my debate exhibited (CP, the other guy). If you suggest that I let injustice run rampant, then you are highly mistaken.

On a side note, it serves you right to get inaccurate and poorly thought out votes, you've been giving them to other people for how long now? I still remember your VB on my debate with Jimtimmy.

Completely irrelevant.
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:40:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:27:51 AM, YYW wrote:
I grant you that many people give fantastically stupid RFD's, but DDO allows everyone the equal opportunity to cast stupid ballots. All I can say is... it is what it is. Debate anonymously for the insight gained for the experience, not for the ego boost of winning (although winning is nice, fo' sho').

Just because something "is" I should accept it as "is?" Lol.
"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."
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:41:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
This unjust voting has really got to stop.

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

Let's take a look at both of the votes here:

The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

The second vote is just a tad longer but still the same utter bullsh!t:

"The Resolution was about whether or not the United States had justification going to war. Through use of human rights examples, utilitarian examples and statistics Pro made a case as to why the United States was justified in going to war. Con's case was not convincing as it did not go back to the resolution enough. He got caught up in his own arguments and failed to say why the United States should NOT have gone into Iraq."

Let's dissect this RFD sentence by sentence.

1. "The Resolution was about whether or not the United States had justification going to war."

Yes.

2. "Through use of human rights examples, utilitarian examples and statistics Pro made a case as to why the United States was justified in going to war."

Obviously CP never read the frickin' debate. All of my opponent's statistics for major human rights abuses happened in the 1980s and the 1990s. Through my "utilitarianism is forward looking point" all of these statistics became moot and irrelevant immediately. My opponent then tried to bring up that the abuses were still happening but his first link showed that there were reports of prior abuse and his second link showed that there were reports of domestic abuse. The first point is moot because of the utilitarianism refutation and the second point doesn't justify foreign intervention (lol.)

3. "Con's case was not convincing as it did not go back to the resolution enough. He got caught up in his own arguments and failed to say why the United States should NOT have gone into Iraq."

The BOP was on my opponent- not myself. I did not have to provide a case for why the US was justified in going to war; I had to refute my opponent's case.

As well, CP even fails to justify how I got caught up in my own arguments and was not convincing.
______

My opponent actually praised the first voter for "objective about the debate." Lol wut?

I would be perfectly fine with a vote against me as long as it doesn't contain blatant vote bombs, hasty generalizations, saying that I didn't refute something with no justification, and obviously not reading the debate before voting.

Just to be clear: THIS IS IN NO WAY an attack on my opponent. This is an attack on unfair voting.

Thanks for not attacking me, but for clarification I mean't objective as in someone who me nor you know and has no interest(s) within the debate from what I can see.
I do get it though, votes can be fustrating
Thank you for voting!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:44:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:39:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:33:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Are you new here sir? Welcome to DDO. People will vote however they want, so long as their RFDs have reason. It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. It you feel strongly that their votes were bogus, then get a 3rd opinion, PM some people to take a look at the debate for you. There couldn't be worse idea than broadcasting this insular issue on the forums.

I want people on the forums to see some of the stupidity that the members who voted on my debate exhibited (CP, the other guy). If you suggest that I let injustice run rampant, then you are highly mistaken.

Stop whining, it happens to everyone.
"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
7/28/2012 10:54:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:44:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:39:51 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:33:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Are you new here sir? Welcome to DDO. People will vote however they want, so long as their RFDs have reason. It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. It you feel strongly that their votes were bogus, then get a 3rd opinion, PM some people to take a look at the debate for you. There couldn't be worse idea than broadcasting this insular issue on the forums.

I want people on the forums to see some of the stupidity that the members who voted on my debate exhibited (CP, the other guy). If you suggest that I let injustice run rampant, then you are highly mistaken.

Stop whining, it happens to everyone.

Hahahah. Fail reasoning is fail.
"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."
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:55:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:40:40 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:27:51 AM, YYW wrote:
I grant you that many people give fantastically stupid RFD's, but DDO allows everyone the equal opportunity to cast stupid ballots. All I can say is... it is what it is. Debate anonymously for the insight gained for the experience, not for the ego boost of winning (although winning is nice, fo' sho').

Just because something "is" I should accept it as "is?" Lol.

(1) Recognize what a vote reflects. In an RFD a judge tells you what was persuasive to them and generally what wasn't persuasive to them. If you want to benefit from the RFD so that perhaps you don't make similar mistakes in future debates, then read the RFD's and accept them for what they are. (Btw. if you didn't persuade the judge then somewhere you made a mistake. Although not every judge judges the same way, so that is worth considering too.)
(2) Be a good sport about things. When I first joined DDO, I reacted the same way you did and I basically said the same things about one specific judge. I still think I was right, but that burned a bridge. Not good politics, and even worse practice. So yes, you should "accept it as it is."

And btw... CP is well versed on foreign policy. Don't be so arrogant or naïve as to think that just because a judge didn't vote for you that they are stupid, or dismiss their votes in kind. I haven't personally read the debate -but I would trust his opinion. The other? Not sure about them. Don't know them.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:57:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, I'll go change my vote because you told me to.

Heaven forbid you should think I voted *gasp* against what you think is right.

Your case was weak LK. Sorry but it's true. Pro showed plenty of justification for going to war. There are plenty of ways to justify something. Just because you don't agree doesn't make anyone else wrong or right. It is what it is.

All this thread does is make you look like a whiny b!tch who can't take a loss or accept other's opinions. Sounds about right though.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:01:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:57:51 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Okay, I'll go change my vote because you told me to.

Heaven forbid you should think I voted *gasp* against what you think is right.

Your case was weak LK. Sorry but it's true. Pro showed plenty of justification for going to war. There are plenty of ways to justify something. Just because you don't agree doesn't make anyone else wrong or right. It is what it is.

Oh please. I have no problem with anybody voting against me. I do have problems with somebody voting against me because "my case was weak" despite providing absolutely no justification for it. Any vote that doesn't include a reason of why my case for strong/weak is a blatant vote bomb and should be treated as such. If anything, you probably voted on your fascist neo-conservative tendencies before reading the actual debate.
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:02:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nice change of vote. Your new RFD is "I did not provide enough justification." Lol. You are pathetic...
"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."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:03:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:01:29 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:57:51 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Okay, I'll go change my vote because you told me to.

Heaven forbid you should think I voted *gasp* against what you think is right.

Your case was weak LK. Sorry but it's true. Pro showed plenty of justification for going to war. There are plenty of ways to justify something. Just because you don't agree doesn't make anyone else wrong or right. It is what it is.

Oh please. I have no problem with anybody voting against me. I do have problems with somebody voting against me because "my case was weak" despite providing absolutely no justification for it. Any vote that doesn't include a reason of why my case for strong/weak is a blatant vote bomb and should be treated as such. If anything, you probably voted on your fascist neo-conservative tendencies before reading the actual debate.

I redid my RFD. It came down to you saying his justification wasn't good enough for war. In the end, I thought it was up to the voter to decide, not the debater, who actually had a better case.

I decided it was enough justification for war. That's the opinion I got from the debate. Tough.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:04:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:02:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nice change of vote. Your new RFD is "I did not provide enough justification." Lol. You are pathetic...

That's funny, you quoted something that I didn't even come close to saying.

I said Pro showed plenty of justification. You started saying it wasn't good enough justification. In the end, I felt differently.

I don't have to justify myself to you.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:05:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:03:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:01:29 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:57:51 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Okay, I'll go change my vote because you told me to.

Heaven forbid you should think I voted *gasp* against what you think is right.

Your case was weak LK. Sorry but it's true. Pro showed plenty of justification for going to war. There are plenty of ways to justify something. Just because you don't agree doesn't make anyone else wrong or right. It is what it is.

Oh please. I have no problem with anybody voting against me. I do have problems with somebody voting against me because "my case was weak" despite providing absolutely no justification for it. Any vote that doesn't include a reason of why my case for strong/weak is a blatant vote bomb and should be treated as such. If anything, you probably voted on your fascist neo-conservative tendencies before reading the actual debate.

I redid my RFD. It came down to you saying his justification wasn't good enough for war. In the end, I thought it was up to the voter to decide, not the debater, who actually had a better case.

I decided it was enough justification for war. That's the opinion I got from the debate. Tough.

Why was it not enough justification? You never answered this simple fvcking question. It's a vote bomb to just say "there was not enough justification" and end the conversation there.

Give me a detailed argument by argument analysis of why my points did not have enough justification and I'll be fine with the vote.
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:05:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:04:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:02:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nice change of vote. Your new RFD is "I did not provide enough justification." Lol. You are pathetic...

That's funny, you quoted something that I didn't even come close to saying.

I said Pro showed plenty of justification. You started saying it wasn't good enough justification. In the end, I felt differently.

Why?

I don't have to justify myself to you.

Yeah, you do.
"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."
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:15:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:05:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:04:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:02:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nice change of vote. Your new RFD is "I did not provide enough justification." Lol. You are pathetic...

That's funny, you quoted something that I didn't even come close to saying.

I said Pro showed plenty of justification. You started saying it wasn't good enough justification. In the end, I felt differently.

Why?

I don't have to justify myself to you.

Yeah, you do.

Actually he doesn't. And you're acting like a petulant little b!tch. It's unbecoming. Reform.
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 12:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

RFD does not stand for "detailed analysis of every reason why I voted the way I did", it stands for "reason for decision". The RFD given here is certainly enough reason to vote against you. Not enough detail does not make a person's vote a votebomb, and certainly does not make their vote unjustified.

If you disagree with someone's vote, just ask them what they meant. If they missed something important then read your arguments again and see what you could have done differently to make your case more clear. Learn something. But creating threads whining about people voting against you when you have developed quite a reputation of unjustified voting yourself accomplishes nothing.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 1:37:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I miss MACE debates, when the voting parties give no justification for the purpose of this insanity being removed. Essentially, LK is btching about 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...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 1:57:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 1:53:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
LK may not have had a very strong case, but it was enough to rebut the BOP.

I don't think anyone actually said he had no reason to complain. The problem is the way in which he goes about complaining. It's inappropriate and immature.
"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
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well now we're getting more votes, so it isn't as bad, besides 16k messed up but I'm not going apeshit about it, just ask for clarification.
Thank you for voting!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:26:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 1:57:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/28/2012 1:53:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
LK may not have had a very strong case, but it was enough to rebut the BOP.

I don't think anyone actually said he had no reason to complain. The problem is the way in which he goes about complaining. It's inappropriate and immature.

Lol. k.
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:31:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 12:35:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

RFD does not stand for "detailed analysis of every reason why I voted the way I did", it stands for "reason for decision". The RFD given here is certainly enough reason to vote against you. Not enough detail does not make a person's vote a votebomb, and certainly does not make their vote unjustified.

Of course it isn't. This is the equivalent of me going to some random arbitrary debate and saying "Pro won because he had better points," without actually justifying why he had better points or why those points were not rebutted adequately enough. This is the equivalent of vote bombing. CP's vote was pretty much a long way of saying "Con didn't rebut Pro's points." The first vote was just a complete and blatant VB.
"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."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:35:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Am I the only one who heard John McEnroe when they read the title? Hahaha...oh, I am? And nobody cares? My bad...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:37:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 12:35:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

RFD does not stand for "detailed analysis of every reason why I voted the way I did", it stands for "reason for decision". The RFD given here is certainly enough reason to vote against you. Not enough detail does not make a person's vote a votebomb, and certainly does not make their vote unjustified.

Of course it isn't. This is the equivalent of me going to some random arbitrary debate and saying "Pro won because he had better points," without actually justifying why he had better points or why those points were not rebutted adequately enough. This is the equivalent of vote bombing. CP's vote was pretty much a long way of saying "Con didn't rebut Pro's points." The first vote was just a complete and blatant VB.

I asked him and this is what he sent me:

Chelicerae
Lord Knuckle used John Hopkins for the Iraq war debate, and that study was BS.

Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 1:40:49 PM
Posted by:
TheHitchslap
he plagiarized?
what do you mean sir?

Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 2:35:49 PM
Posted by:
Chelicerae
No. He stated stated 625k people died from the Iraq war, and I believe that's from John Hopkins University and their study. The study was extremely flawed and is considered an over-estimation
Thank you for voting!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:37:21 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 12:35:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

RFD does not stand for "detailed analysis of every reason why I voted the way I did", it stands for "reason for decision". The RFD given here is certainly enough reason to vote against you. Not enough detail does not make a person's vote a votebomb, and certainly does not make their vote unjustified.

Of course it isn't. This is the equivalent of me going to some random arbitrary debate and saying "Pro won because he had better points," without actually justifying why he had better points or why those points were not rebutted adequately enough. This is the equivalent of vote bombing. CP's vote was pretty much a long way of saying "Con didn't rebut Pro's points." The first vote was just a complete and blatant VB.



I asked him and this is what he sent me:

Chelicerae
Lord Knuckle used John Hopkins for the Iraq war debate, and that study was BS.

Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 1:40:49 PM
Posted by:
TheHitchslap
he plagiarized?
what do you mean sir?

Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 2:35:49 PM
Posted by:
Chelicerae
No. He stated stated 625k people died from the Iraq war, and I believe that's from John Hopkins University and their study. The study was extremely flawed and is considered an over-estimation

Even if the study was flawed- I doubt it was- it's not the voter's responsibility to call the debater's out on it.
"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."
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:17:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:46:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:37:21 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/28/2012 12:35:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/28/2012 10:23:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The first vote is just complete and utter nonsense

"Utilitarianism was the biggest benefit for Pro, and Con didn't refute it well enough. The fact that Utilitarianism could have justified the holocaust means nothing in regards to Iraq."

Not only is this clearly a blatant vote bomb, but the voter even refused to go into how I didn't refute it well enough- despite me destroying all my opponent's utilitarianistic points- and saying that I compared the Holocaust to the Iraq War (I never did), which I didn't even use except to show the stupidity of one of my opponent's arguments considering time-frame reference.

RFD does not stand for "detailed analysis of every reason why I voted the way I did", it stands for "reason for decision". The RFD given here is certainly enough reason to vote against you. Not enough detail does not make a person's vote a votebomb, and certainly does not make their vote unjustified.

Of course it isn't. This is the equivalent of me going to some random arbitrary debate and saying "Pro won because he had better points," without actually justifying why he had better points or why those points were not rebutted adequately enough. This is the equivalent of vote bombing. CP's vote was pretty much a long way of saying "Con didn't rebut Pro's points." The first vote was just a complete and blatant VB.



I asked him and this is what he sent me:

Chelicerae
Lord Knuckle used John Hopkins for the Iraq war debate, and that study was BS.

Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 1:40:49 PM
Posted by:
TheHitchslap
he plagiarized?
what do you mean sir?

Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 2:35:49 PM
Posted by:
Chelicerae
No. He stated stated 625k people died from the Iraq war, and I believe that's from John Hopkins University and their study. The study was extremely flawed and is considered an over-estimation

Even if the study was flawed- I doubt it was- it's not the voter's responsibility to call the debater's out on it.

I'm just giving you the explanation he gave me
Thank you for voting!