Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Opinion? Who is in the wong?

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
malcolmxy is really getting on my nerves. I swear he is illiterate. He bailed in the middle of m debate after breaking the number 2 rule, and created another debate with the rules changed. I refused to accept it until he removed the definition, and replaced it with the original rule that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation" He refused, and complained in the forum that I would not accept his debate until he added that to the end of his definition. In reality I wanted him to remove the definition, and restore the original rules. He also keeps putting things I've never said in quotes, as if I said them, which is getting on my nerves.

Here is the chronology of the dispute.
At 2/10/2013, malcolmxy wrote in the forums:
At 2/7/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/5/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate:
At 1/31/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/31/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/29/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/29/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/28/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
Debate Rules;
1.) malcolmxy has the BOP
2.) 1st round acceptance only
3.) no ad hominem attacks
4.) there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation
The 1st point that Pro failed to understand in the forums.....
Pro violated the 2nd rule of the debate; "1st round acceptance only"....
If I accept only, then you have to spend a round thanking me and it's a big waste of time. I'l bring you some kleenex later.
No, round 1 was acceptance only, because I was suppose to put forth the first argument, otherwise you have both the first and last argument.
I should be going 1st since you need my argument to post yours.
Let's just scrap this one, start over, except the 1st 2 rounds will remain the same with the exception that I will set up the debate and thus go 1st.
Fine, I'll let you restart the debate so you can go first.
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. ad hominem attacks are allowed
OK...I didn't change the spirit of your rules, but I did change how they were worded. I posted a link to.... Economic Terms and Definitions....
I think that will help with the definition stuff later on as well.
Realize, if you can, though, that just because I don't write as if I am the publisher of an econ textbook, doesn't mean I don't know what all these terms mean.
You changed them completely. You went from "no ad hominem attacks" to "adhominem attacks are allowed".
You also changed the rules from saying that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation", to "Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation"...
Your definition of "regulations in the new debate is a circular definition fallacy, and the source you provided for economic definitions is overly narrow resulting in the narrow definition fallacy .
Well, I'm not going to make the deadline for this debate, so I hope you finally accept the other one.
try the resolution: Lack of Regulation of Natural Resources In Inelastic Markets Causes Monopolies to Form
Same rules as last time. I really don't want ad hominem attacks
Lack of Regulation On Natural Resources In Inelastic Markets Causes Monoplolies to Form
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. Alright - no ad hominem,
Are you going to accept the other one now? I think I made the change you requested, which was the last change you requested.
The only change I didn't make was losing the site for definitions.
you didn't make the changed I requested. You just added notes.
There is no such thing as a semantic argument with economic definitions.
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)
3. Alright - no ad hominem,
there...happy now? Can we just start already?
I'm not making any more changes. I'm issuing it one more time. I'm sick of placating you and your petty, inconsequential demands.
It's not petty demands. You replaced the rule that there is an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation with a rule that limits the definition of laissez faire.
DanT wouldn't accept my debate because I didn't add, "assumes Laisse Faire/Free Market" to the end of this definition -

2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not both an obvious and a given? I already had to add that a "lack of" means "none" to satisfy him, plus edit the rules/conditions of the debate 2 other times for petty crap that didn't matter or was a given by definition of the words already used. I was sick of these petty changes, so I said, take it or leave it.

He left it.

He states that it was because my definition was a "fallacy" (his word). Is it? Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't think so.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 7:30:32 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Our quoting system needs an overhaul.

agreed, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:02:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 7:38:25 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
Why are you attacking this member when they didn't do anything to you?

actually they did. They attacked me in the forums, and in the comments of the debate. I'm just trying to settle this once and for all, to get them off my back. For a month now, he has been harassing me. I just want to put an end to it. It's my birthday today, and he just started up again, after being silent all week. I want to end this once and for all, so he will leave me alone.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 7:24:22 PM, DanT wrote:
malcolmxy is really getting on my nerves. I swear he is illiterate. He bailed in the middle of m debate after breaking the number 2 rule, and created another debate with the rules changed.

To clarify, DanT made a rule where first round was acceptance only, which Malcomxy clearly violated in the debate, which is what rule number 2 is referring to.

I refused to accept it until he removed the definition, and replaced it with the original rule that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation" He refused, and complained in the forum that I would not accept his debate until he added that to the end of his definition. In reality I wanted him to remove the definition, and restore the original rules.

I think youre both in the wrong here. Malcolm screwed up the first debate due to his own moment of idiocy, and then when he still had time left to keep the debate going he decided to start a new one without sorting it out with you beforehand..... Youre not obligated to accept a new debate just because he wants to start over, so thats his fault.

However, if you refused to accept a debate only on the grounds that one and only one definition of something wasnt up to your specifications, thats a pretty d*ck move to pull.... You have plenty of reason to not accept this new debate, but to refuse to do it all because of one definition dispute which to me doesnt make a damn difference anyways, makes it look like youre trying to avoid him or pull a fast win.

He also keeps putting things I've never said in quotes, as if I said them, which is getting on my nerves.

Trolls do that a lot, you just learn to deal with it.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Happy birthday DanT! You deserve better than this today. Go spend some money, or better, get people who love you to buy you stuff. Listen to music, go out somewhere. You know. Celebrate. Get a birthday cake.

I don't think you're going to win this one because malcolmxy is just enjoying himself. I think. Actually, I only understand about half of what he says. But that's my impression. So please. Let it go. You can plot revenge later.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 7:24:22 PM, DanT wrote:
malcolmxy is really getting on my nerves. I swear he is illiterate. He bailed in the middle of m debate after breaking the number 2 rule, and created another debate with the rules changed. I refused to accept it until he removed the definition, and replaced it with the original rule that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation" He refused, and complained in the forum that I would not accept his debate until he added that to the end of his definition. In reality I wanted him to remove the definition, and restore the original rules. He also keeps putting things I've never said in quotes, as if I said them, which is getting on my nerves.

Here is the chronology of the dispute.
At 2/10/2013, malcolmxy wrote in the forums:
At 2/7/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/5/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate:
At 1/31/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/31/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/29/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/29/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/28/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
Debate Rules;
1.) malcolmxy has the BOP
2.) 1st round acceptance only
3.) no ad hominem attacks
4.) there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation
The 1st point that Pro failed to understand in the forums.....
Pro violated the 2nd rule of the debate; "1st round acceptance only"....
If I accept only, then you have to spend a round thanking me and it's a big waste of time. I'l bring you some kleenex later.
No, round 1 was acceptance only, because I was suppose to put forth the first argument, otherwise you have both the first and last argument.
I should be going 1st since you need my argument to post yours.
Let's just scrap this one, start over, except the 1st 2 rounds will remain the same with the exception that I will set up the debate and thus go 1st.
Fine, I'll let you restart the debate so you can go first.
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. ad hominem attacks are allowed

I would have cut my losses here and walked away.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:16:22 PM, rross wrote:
Happy birthday DanT! You deserve better than this today. Go spend some money, or better, get people who love you to buy you stuff. Listen to music, go out somewhere. You know. Celebrate. Get a birthday cake.

I don't think you're going to win this one because malcolmxy is just enjoying himself. I think. Actually, I only understand about half of what he says. But that's my impression. So please. Let it go. You can plot revenge later.

Actually, that was a bit patronizing of me, sorry. Withdrawn. The thing is, these arguments prior to debates are kind of annoying, and I can't stand arguments about debates in the comments. So right or wrong, I'm going to naturally sympathize with the person trying to get out of it. Which was malcolmxy on this occasion.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, this reads like a Monty Python Skit.

FATHER: Cut that out, cut that out. Look, you're marryin' Princess
Lucky, so you'd better get used to the idea. [smack] Guards! Make sure
the Prince doesn't leave this room until I come and get 'im.
GUARD #1: Not to leave the room even if you come and get him.
GUARD #2: Hic!
FATHER: No, no. Until I come and get 'im.
GUARD #1: Until you come and get him, we're not to enter the room.
FATHER: No, no, no. You stay in the room and make sure 'e doesn't
leave.
GUARD #1: And you'll come and get him.
GUARD #2: Hic!
FATHER: Right.
GUARD #1: We don't need to do anything, apart from just stop him
entering the room.
FATHER: No, no. Leaving the room.
GUARD #1: Leaving the room, yes.
FATHER: All right?
GUARD #1: Right. Oh, if-if-if, uh, if-if-if, uh, if-if-if we...
FATHER: Yes, what is it?
GUARD #1: Oh, if-if, oh--
FATHER: Look, it's quite simple.
GUARD #1: Uh...
FATHER: You just stay here, and make sure 'e doesn't leave the room.
All right?
GUARD #2: Hic!
FATHER: Right.
GUARD #1: Oh, I remember. Uh, can he leave the room with us?
FATHER: N- No no no. You just keep him in here, and make sure--
GUARD #1: Oh, yes, we'll keep him in here, obviously. But if he had
to leave and we were--
FATHER: No, no, just keep him in here--
GUARD #1: Until you, or anyone else,--
FATHER: No, not anyone else, just me--
GUARD #1: Just you.
GUARD #2: Hic!
FATHER: Get back.
GUARD #1: Get back.
FATHER: Right?
GUARD #1: Right, we'll stay here until you get back.
FATHER: And, uh, make sure he doesn't leave.
GUARD #1: What?
FATHER: Make sure 'e doesn't leave.
GUARD #1: The Prince?
FATHER: Yes, make sure 'e doesn't leave.
GUARD #1: Oh, yes, of course. I thought you meant him. Y'know, it
seemed a bit daft, me havin' to guard him when he's a guard.
FATHER: Is that clear?
GUARD #2: Hic!
GUARD #1: Oh, quite clear, no problems.
FATHER: Right.
[starts to leave]
Where are you going?
GUARD #1: We're coming with you.
FATHER: No no, I want you to stay 'ere and make sure 'e doesn't leave.
GUARD #1: Oh, I see. Right.
HERBERT: But, Father!
FATHER: Shut your noise, you! And get that suit on! And no singing!
GUARD #2: Hic!
FATHER: Oh, go get a glass of water.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:29:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:14:05 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 7:24:22 PM, DanT wrote:
malcolmxy is really getting on my nerves. I swear he is illiterate. He bailed in the middle of m debate after breaking the number 2 rule, and created another debate with the rules changed.

To clarify, DanT made a rule where first round was acceptance only, which Malcomxy clearly violated in the debate, which is what rule number 2 is referring to.

I refused to accept it until he removed the definition, and replaced it with the original rule that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation" He refused, and complained in the forum that I would not accept his debate until he added that to the end of his definition. In reality I wanted him to remove the definition, and restore the original rules.

I think youre both in the wrong here. Malcolm screwed up the first debate due to his own moment of idiocy, and then when he still had time left to keep the debate going he decided to start a new one without sorting it out with you beforehand..... Youre not obligated to accept a new debate just because he wants to start over, so thats his fault.

However, if you refused to accept a debate only on the grounds that one and only one definition of something wasnt up to your specifications, thats a pretty d*ck move to pull.... You have plenty of reason to not accept this new debate, but to refuse to do it all because of one definition dispute which to me doesnt make a damn difference anyways, makes it look like youre trying to avoid him or pull a fast win.

No it was not over 1 definition, it was because he replaced the original rules of the debate with his own F'ed up rules. I simply wanted the original rules restored. I didn't want any definitions period. No matter how many times I told him that, he could not understand. At one point I legitimately thought English was his second language, because there seemed to be some kind of communication barrier.
The definition narrowed which Free Markets I could and could not consider a free market. There was not an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation, which was the rule I was most concerned about; because he could claim the effects of other regulations as a reason for regulations.

He also keeps putting things I've never said in quotes, as if I said them, which is getting on my nerves.

Trolls do that a lot, you just learn to deal with it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:02:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2013 7:38:25 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
Why are you attacking this member when they didn't do anything to you?

actually they did. They attacked me in the forums, and in the comments of the debate. I'm just trying to settle this once and for all, to get them off my back. For a month now, he has been harassing me. I just want to put an end to it. It's my birthday today, and he just started up again, after being silent all week. I want to end this once and for all, so he will leave me alone.
here are some of the things malcolmxy said to me.
1 week ago, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 week ago, DanT wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 week ago, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 week ago, DanT wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 week ago, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 week ago, DanT wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 week ago, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
I defined it as regulation never existing, or deregulation, or an impossibility of regulation. I defined it more broadly than you are asking.
No you defined it as "deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation"
So if there was regulations prior to the market's existence that effects the market, than completely eliminating regulation does not count as "no regulation".
Removing only some regulations, but leaving others can count as "no regulation", by your definition; which means there is not an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation, but it's still semantically called "laissez faire" whether it is actually laissez faire or not.

Simply defining "no regulations" as "a deregulated market", does not mean that there is an assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation. If you defined "deregulation" as ::::::"removing all regulations", than there would be am assumption of laissez faire, but not the reverse.
yes, that would be DEREGULATION
>.< it's like talking to a brick wall. Is English your first lanquage?
Yes, Mr. "Island of Lesbos...is that where Lesbianism comes from?" I'm the brick wall. If you were any dumber, you'd forget to breathe, but I'm sure it's me.

I tried, you're worthless and I now officially cease to care.
I didn't ask if lesbianism comes from the isles of lesbos I made a rhetorical question about the origin of the term. It was a statement in question form. I don't see how that is relivent to the discussion, other than proving your ignorance of the written word, yet again.
I only declined your debate because of the definition fallacy in the rules which you refuse to correct.

Don't use quotes unless you are actually quoting someone.
This is what I really said;
"'The Island of Lesbos.' Isn't that the Island known for Lesbianism, from which Lesbianism receives its name?"

I did not ask if that is where lesbianism comes from.
If you wanted to paraphrase in order to destort my rhetorical question, you should use the proper etiquette for paraphrasing;

"'Island of Lesbos' [Is] that" where "Lesbianism" comes "from?"

Of course than it would be obvious you were taking what I said out of context.
I'll post in the forum and see what others think.

That's when he posted this obomination;
http://www.debate.org...

Than 6 days ago he posted in the debate again;
today, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
today, DanT wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 day ago, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
1 day ago, wrichcirw wrote in 1st debate comments:
5 days ago, DanT wrote in 1st debate comments:
6 days ago, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate comments:
I've already gotten confirmation in the forum that you are an insufferable fool, but just to continue on that path...
malcolmxy they thought I was the one trying to over-define everything, whereas you were the one trying to over define everything. So their criticisms of me, was in actuality criticisms of you.
LOL, this has the logic of "they say I'm wrong, but really you're wrong, so they're saying you're wrong".

And 2+2=5. Why? Because I say so.
don't even bother, dude. it's hopeless and worse yet, it's boring.
No wrichcirw.
Say Person A says x = Y, and Person B said X = Z.
Now say Person C says that Person A is wrong because X does not equal Z.
Person C was really criticizing what Person B said, but was misattributing it to Person A.
Simply because person C misattributed it to Person A, does not mean he was criticizing what person A said.
blow it out your @ss
The illiterate malcolmxy asked in the forums, "Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not both an obvious and a given? I already had to add that a 'lack of' means 'none' to satisfy him, plus edit the rules/conditions of the debate 2 other times for petty crap that didn't matter or was a given by definition of the words already used. I was sick of these petty changes, so I said, take it or leave it.

He left it.

He states that it was because my definition was a 'fallacy' (his word). Is it? Maybe :I'm being stubborn, but I don't think so."

First off, that is not what I asked him to do. I asked malcolmxy to get rid of the definition, which is a narrow definition fallacy, and use the rule from the original debate(this one); the rule being "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation", which not a definition. I never asked him to add it to the end of his definition, I asked him to remove the definition, and replace it with the original rule.

Here is how people responded;
"Someone being arsey. I still think this site is massively anal when it comes to definitions" ~ Stephen_Hawkins

"I don't remember who said it first, but DanT likes to excessively define words to semantically disprove arguments" ~ imabench referencing a slanderous joke, that refers to me correcting people when they misuse words. This statement has no relevance to the dispute between me and malcolmxy, because I want to get rid of the definition, not expand upon it.

Those are the only 2 people who responded. Both of which were criticizing malcolmxy's persistence on over-defining economic terms, but due to malcolmxy's illiteracy, they thought I was the one pushing for stricter definitions.

If Person A believes X, and Person B believes Y, and Person C says Person A is wrong because Y is wrong; Person C is not agreeing with Person B, he is agreeing with Person A.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:49:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:29:52 PM, DanT wrote:

No it was not over 1 definition, it was because he replaced the original rules of the debate with his own F'ed up rules. I simply wanted the original rules restored.

What were the original rules and what were the new ones. Let everyone here decide if they are f'ed up or not.

I didn't want any definitions period. No matter how many times I told him that, he could not understand. At one point I legitimately thought English was his second language, because there seemed to be some kind of communication barrier. The definition narrowed which Free Markets I could and could not consider a free market. There was not an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation, which was the rule I was most concerned about; because he could claim the effects of other regulations as a reason for regulations.

If you dont like the definitions then dont accept the debate.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 8:51:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:20:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/17/2013 7:24:22 PM, DanT wrote:
malcolmxy is really getting on my nerves. I swear he is illiterate. He bailed in the middle of m debate after breaking the number 2 rule, and created another debate with the rules changed. I refused to accept it until he removed the definition, and replaced it with the original rule that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation" He refused, and complained in the forum that I would not accept his debate until he added that to the end of his definition. In reality I wanted him to remove the definition, and restore the original rules. He also keeps putting things I've never said in quotes, as if I said them, which is getting on my nerves.

Here is the chronology of the dispute.
At 2/10/2013, malcolmxy wrote in the forums:
At 2/7/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/5/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate:
At 1/31/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/31/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/29/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/29/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/28/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
Debate Rules;
1.) malcolmxy has the BOP
2.) 1st round acceptance only
3.) no ad hominem attacks
4.) there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation
The 1st point that Pro failed to understand in the forums.....
Pro violated the 2nd rule of the debate; "1st round acceptance only"....
If I accept only, then you have to spend a round thanking me and it's a big waste of time. I'l bring you some kleenex later.
No, round 1 was acceptance only, because I was suppose to put forth the first argument, otherwise you have both the first and last argument.
I should be going 1st since you need my argument to post yours.
Let's just scrap this one, start over, except the 1st 2 rounds will remain the same with the exception that I will set up the debate and thus go 1st.
Fine, I'll let you restart the debate so you can go first.
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. ad hominem attacks are allowed

I would have cut my losses here and walked away.

Than he would still be bugging me for declining the debate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:49:34 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 8:29:52 PM, DanT wrote:

At 2/17/2013 7:24:22 PM, DanT wrote:
Here is the chronology of the dispute.
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate:
At 1/28/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
Debate Rules;
1.) malcolmxy has the BOP
2.) 1st round acceptance only
3.) no ad hominem attacks
4.) there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. ad hominem attacks are allowed
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. Alright - no ad hominem,
No it was not over 1 definition, it was because he replaced the original rules of the debate with his own F'ed up rules. I simply wanted the original rules restored.

What were the original rules and what were the new ones. Let everyone here decide if they are f'ed up or not.

They are in the OP;

I didn't want any definitions period. No matter how many times I told him that, he could not understand. At one point I legitimately thought English was his second language, because there seemed to be some kind of communication barrier. The definition narrowed which Free Markets I could and could not consider a free market. There was not an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation, which was the rule I was most concerned about; because he could claim the effects of other regulations as a reason for regulations.

If you dont like the definitions then dont accept the debate.

I didn't
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:03:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 8:51:02 PM, DanT wrote:

Than he would still be bugging me for declining the debate.

He bugs EVERYONE for declining debates. He calls them pvssies all the time. He even bugs people who show no inclination to debate him. He's funny that way.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:17:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DanT, you keep ignoring me but I don't care. I will STILL keep on with my opinion. And actually, I think you're right now I've bothered to read all the comments. He is being completely unfair. But, see, he's just so entertaining. He's hilarious. He's like a DDO superstar.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:34:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:17:04 PM, rross wrote:
DanT, you keep ignoring me but I don't care. I will STILL keep on with my opinion. And actually, I think you're right now I've bothered to read all the comments. He is being completely unfair. But, see, he's just so entertaining. He's hilarious. He's like a DDO superstar.

If I don't respond (in any thread in any of the forums) it either means;
A.) I agree
B.) I don't see any point in disputing what you said
or
C.) Too many people are replying, so I'm only focusing on larger points

Usually C is not an issue.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:59:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 10:34:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2013 9:17:04 PM, rross wrote:
DanT, you keep ignoring me but I don't care. I will STILL keep on with my opinion. And actually, I think you're right now I've bothered to read all the comments. He is being completely unfair. But, see, he's just so entertaining. He's hilarious. He's like a DDO superstar.

If I don't respond (in any thread in any of the forums) it either means;
A.) I agree
B.) I don't see any point in disputing what you said
or
C.) Too many people are replying, so I'm only focusing on larger points

Usually C is not an issue.

Oh. Thanks for explaining.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 1:32:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who is in the wong?

Hey, listen, if you're banging some dude named Wong, that's none of my business. If you want to be in him, you stay in him.

What you do in your bedroom is your prerogative. Don't ever let anyone make you feel ashamed for being who you are. You're somebody.


They say I'm crazy
I really don't care
that's my prerogative
they say I'm nasty
but I don't give a damn
getting girls I how I live
Some asking question
why am I so real
but they don't understand me
I really don't know the deal
about my brother
trying hard to make it right
not long ago
before I win this fight
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 1:55:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 10:37:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
I cannot understand this before you define every word in the OP.

THANK YOU!!!
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 1:56:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:17:04 PM, rross wrote:
DanT, you keep ignoring me but I don't care. I will STILL keep on with my opinion. And actually, I think you're right now I've bothered to read all the comments. He is being completely unfair. But, see, he's just so entertaining. He's hilarious. He's like a DDO superstar.

I am glorious, aren't I?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:49:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@DanT:

Is he not bugging you anyway? If so, then that shouldn't be a factor in your decision making. It's like a sunk cost; you can't avoid it, you can only minimize the costs you can control, like how long you're willing to perpetuate this back-and-forth between him.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 7:22:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:49:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
@DanT:

Is he not bugging you anyway? If so, then that shouldn't be a factor in your decision making. It's like a sunk cost; you can't avoid it, you can only minimize the costs you can control, like how long you're willing to perpetuate this back-and-forth between him.

You're trying to use economic theory with a guy who doesn't understand it. I've been ignoring him for weeks, but he still posts comments, because everybody feels a need to prove me wrong and none of them can.

Every time I've pressed the issue, I've been correct.

When I'm wrong, I admit it, thank the person for correcting me and move on.

But these f*cking dimwits can't afford me the same courtesy, and this is what ensues.

....................

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they've passed the point of no return. This is sometimes referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": it is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad".
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:16:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 7:22:42 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:49:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
@DanT:

Is he not bugging you anyway? If so, then that shouldn't be a factor in your decision making. It's like a sunk cost; you can't avoid it, you can only minimize the costs you can control, like how long you're willing to perpetuate this back-and-forth between him.

You're trying to use economic theory with a guy who doesn't understand it. I've been ignoring him for weeks, but he still posts comments,
Not true. I have only been responding to things you have said within 24 hours of my response. You are not ignoring me, you are harassing me.
because everybody feels a need to prove me wrong and none of them can.

Every time I've pressed the issue, I've been correct.

Again with your narcissism. Yeah, you are so superior to everyone around you. The reason everyone disagrees with you is not because you are wrong, but rather because everyone else is wrong. You are all knowing, and alters should be erected in praise of your infinite wisdom. BTW that is sarcasm, I only point it out, because I know you have trouble understanding elementary English.

When I'm wrong, I admit it, thank the person for correcting me and move on.

Not true. You've never admitted to being wrong. You have only pleaded ignorance, you've never admitted to being wrong.
You admitted ignorance twice;
The 1st time you admitted you did not know enough about the telephone industry to give a rebuttal, but that was only to avoid admitting you were wrong in your statement. You refused to recognize that I was right, even after admitting to being ignorant of the subject.
The 2nd time you admitted you was ignorant when it comes to proper English, but you did so while trying to claim proper English was irrelevant to the dispute (it was not).
Again, admitting ignorance is not the same as admitting you were wrong.
But these f*cking dimwits can't afford me the same courtesy, and this is what ensues.

Keep digging that hole.
....................

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they've passed the point of no return. This is sometimes referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": it is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad".

A sunken cost has more to do with investing than it does economics. A sunken cost is an nonrefundable cost that has already been incurred and therefore cannot be recovered. Say I invest in $100 worth of stock, now say the value of that stock is declining 10% per year; I could either hold on to it in the hopes it would improve or sell it at a loss. If the stock never improves, than I loss more than if I cut my losses. In venture capitalism, it is sometimes better to liquidate than to blow a bunch of money turning the company around. For example, when Romney saved a bunch of businesses by firing employees. People were all over his case on it during the elections, but he saved jobs by firing employees, because otherwise the company would have went under.
In short, sometimes it is more costly to continue on than to give up.

drafterman was basically saying you are not worth my time, and you essentially agreed with him.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:17:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 1:55:14 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/17/2013 10:37:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
I cannot understand this before you define every word in the OP.

THANK YOU!!!

Troll thanking a troll..... Figures......
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle