Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this good debate ethics and is it allowed?

kazmo
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:57:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
43 uses of it... I can't read this... S&G fail?
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 2:11:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's unusual, certainly. I've never seen a debate on here quite like it. I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed, in that I can't think of anything expressly forbidding it.
I'm back (ish).
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:47:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

I'm not sure what you think should be done. There is nothing that violates any of the rules. I don't mean to be harsh, but it sounds to me like you want an easy win without putting in effort.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:49:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:15:19 AM, kazmo wrote:
Okay, I see, I'll just have to wait until the voting period. Thanks!

So you're waiting to organize votebombing on your debate? You can't get people to vote against someone because the debaters don't like him or what he does. He didn't violate any of the rules.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:52:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.

If you don't believe it's votebombing, feel free to ask airmax about whether or not you can vote against someone for not formatting the debate the way you wanted it to be formatted. Ask him whether or not he would suspend your voting privileges for doing this, or at the very least would remove your vote for doing this.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:54:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:49:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:15:19 AM, kazmo wrote:
Okay, I see, I'll just have to wait until the voting period. Thanks!

So you're waiting to organize votebombing on your debate? You can't get people to vote against someone because the debaters don't like him or what he does. He didn't violate any of the rules.

Hello royalpaladin,

It's about conduct, which is part of a debate.

I have heard the term brothers & sisters in a formal spoken debate.

Given there is a section of ones vote dedicated to conduct, a voter who supported the argument made but not the conduct is able to vote accordingly. Which in my opinion would be the fairest and most appropriate way to handle minor poor conduct such as this.

To accuse the OP of organizing a vote bomb seems a little harsh, it's a question that deserves an answer.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:55:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, after skimming the debate, I am inclined to say that kazmo is being beaten pretty badly, and that's why he's trying to organize votebombing. That's actually pathetic, because the argument is terrible. I'm going to challenge the other debater at some point.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:56:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:52:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.

If you don't believe it's votebombing, feel free to ask airmax about whether or not you can vote against someone for not formatting the debate the way you wanted it to be formatted. Ask him whether or not he would suspend your voting privileges for doing this, or at the very least would remove your vote for doing this.

I refer you to my post above and will happily debate you on whether the OP was attempting a votebomb as you accuse them of doing so,

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:01:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:54:37 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:15:19 AM, kazmo wrote:
Okay, I see, I'll just have to wait until the voting period. Thanks!

So you're waiting to organize votebombing on your debate? You can't get people to vote against someone because the debaters don't like him or what he does. He didn't violate any of the rules.

Hello royalpaladin,

It's about conduct, which is part of a debate.

LOL, calling someone "brother" doesn't violate conduct. He didn't insult his opponent and as far as I am aware, did not plagiarize or cheat. Formatting the debate in a weird way doesn't violate conduct either.

I'm glad that you said this, however, because I feel that "conduct" has just become a mechanism for voters to abuse the voting system. It lets people think that they can vote other people down for any reason they like, which is not permissible. Like, I know people assign conduct points to the other debater for conduct outside the debate, which is complete bogus. "Conduct" basically means "do I like the other debater?"

I think "conduct" should be eliminated. If conduct actually is poor (like insulting, plagiarism, or cheating), the person with poor conduct gets a loss anyways.
I have heard the term brothers & sisters in a formal spoken debate.

Ok, so then why does this violate conduct?
Given there is a section of ones vote dedicated to conduct, a voter who supported the argument made but not the conduct is able to vote accordingly. Which in my opinion would be the fairest and most appropriate way to handle minor poor conduct such as this.

It's not poor conduct to calls someone "brother", LOL. You can't vote against someone just because you want to. He didn't violate any debate rules.
To accuse the OP of organizing a vote bomb seems a little harsh, it's a question that deserves an answer.

Well, it looks like that's what he's doing. "Waah, I'm losing. Please don't vote me down! He called me brother! What a meanie!"
Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:02:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:56:53 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:52:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.

If you don't believe it's votebombing, feel free to ask airmax about whether or not you can vote against someone for not formatting the debate the way you wanted it to be formatted. Ask him whether or not he would suspend your voting privileges for doing this, or at the very least would remove your vote for doing this.

I refer you to my post above and will happily debate you on whether the OP was attempting a votebomb as you accuse them of doing so,

Regards,
Ben

He's trying to organize pity votes for something that doesn't 'even violate debate rules. That's called votebombing.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:04:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:56:53 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:52:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.

If you don't believe it's votebombing, feel free to ask airmax about whether or not you can vote against someone for not formatting the debate the way you wanted it to be formatted. Ask him whether or not he would suspend your voting privileges for doing this, or at the very least would remove your vote for doing this.

I refer you to my post above and will happily debate you on whether the OP was attempting a votebomb as you accuse them of doing so,

Regards,
Ben

Sometimes I don't get you people. Is that really a topic worthy of your time and energy?
"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
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:05:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love the response of people on here. "Yeah, it's not actually against the rules, but we'll vote him down anyways because we want to."

Translation: "I don't like him or his argument, so I'm going to votebomb him"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:06:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:04:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:56:53 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:52:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.

If you don't believe it's votebombing, feel free to ask airmax about whether or not you can vote against someone for not formatting the debate the way you wanted it to be formatted. Ask him whether or not he would suspend your voting privileges for doing this, or at the very least would remove your vote for doing this.

I refer you to my post above and will happily debate you on whether the OP was attempting a votebomb as you accuse them of doing so,

Regards,
Ben

Sometimes I don't get you people. Is that really a topic worthy of your time and energy?

Of course it isn't, unless he has a cabal of votebombers behind him.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:08:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:01:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:54:37 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:15:19 AM, kazmo wrote:
Okay, I see, I'll just have to wait until the voting period. Thanks!

So you're waiting to organize votebombing on your debate? You can't get people to vote against someone because the debaters don't like him or what he does. He didn't violate any of the rules.

Hello royalpaladin,

It's about conduct, which is part of a debate.

LOL, calling someone "brother" doesn't violate conduct. He didn't insult his opponent and as far as I am aware, did not plagiarize or cheat. Formatting the debate in a weird way doesn't violate conduct either.


Did I say he violated conduct? Did I say he did any of these things?

I'm glad that you said this, however, because I feel that "conduct" has just become a mechanism for voters to abuse the voting system. It lets people think that they can vote other people down for any reason they like, which is not permissible. Like, I know people assign conduct points to the other debater for conduct outside the debate, which is complete bogus. "Conduct" basically means "do I like the other debater?"

You may feel that way, I don't. The second point is irrelevant, people may do this, but it does not call for sweeping generalizations about voters.

I think "conduct" should be eliminated. If conduct actually is poor (like insulting, plagiarism, or cheating), the person with poor conduct gets a loss anyways.

OK

I have heard the term brothers & sisters in a formal spoken debate.

Ok, so then why does this violate conduct?

Again did I say it violates conduct?

Given there is a section of ones vote dedicated to conduct, a voter who supported the argument made but not the conduct is able to vote accordingly. Which in my opinion would be the fairest and most appropriate way to handle minor poor conduct such as this.

It's not poor conduct to calls someone "brother", LOL. You can't vote against someone just because you want to. He didn't violate any debate rules.

Yes but the quetion is 'who has better conduct?'

Not, 'who's conduct was poor?'

I would submit that the voters will choose according to the question,

To accuse the OP of organizing a vote bomb seems a little harsh, it's a question that deserves an answer.

Well, it looks like that's what he's doing. "Waah, I'm losing. Please don't vote me down! He called me brother! What a meanie!"

It might look like that, but without further evidence I don't think the assertion can be supported.

Kindest Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:08:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

I hope by "not vote for him" you mean deduct conduct or S & G, because I don't see how this justifies not voting based on the argument.
"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
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:11:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:04:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:56:53 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:52:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:03 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:33:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:30:48 AM, kazmo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I take the Cons side and I really can't stand reading all of the "brother"'s in my opponents debate. My opponent uses "brother" to start every paragraph and it looks to me as if he isn't formatting just so he can save some characters.

I was wondering if there was anything I could do?

The only thing that makes this not allowed is that voters will not vote for him. That is it, and it's good like that... Most of what is and isn't allowed in a debate is made that way solely through the voters reaction to it.

With the voters, this is a no no. As for actual rules, it's fine.

This is called votebombing. Voters are not permitted to vote against or for anybody for arbitrary reasons. Calling someone "brother" doesn't violate any of the rules, lol.

That said, I think his argument is a complete failure. I wish I had accepted that debate before kazmo.

If you don't believe it's votebombing, feel free to ask airmax about whether or not you can vote against someone for not formatting the debate the way you wanted it to be formatted. Ask him whether or not he would suspend your voting privileges for doing this, or at the very least would remove your vote for doing this.

I refer you to my post above and will happily debate you on whether the OP was attempting a votebomb as you accuse them of doing so,

Regards,
Ben

Sometimes I don't get you people. Is that really a topic worthy of your time and energy?

Hello 000ike,

I hope you're well,

I must say I take debate seriously and think that it's underlining principles are always worth discussion.

I also don't like unfounded accusations against individuals not present to defend themselves (that includes me, as I apparently am some kind of votebombing chief now according to royalpaladin, I move quickly in the world)

I assure you I have plenty of energy left for my usual charm, wit and sexual charisma.

All The Best,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:16:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:11:38 AM, Homosapien wrote:

Hello 000ike,

I hope you're well,

I must say I take debate seriously and think that it's underlining principles are always worth discussion.

I also don't like unfounded accusations against individuals not present to defend themselves (that includes me, as I apparently am some kind of votebombing chief now according to royalpaladin, I move quickly in the world)

I assure you I have plenty of energy left for my usual charm, wit and sexual charisma.

All The Best,
Ben

You're going to have to excuse Royal because she can be sometimes, uh, aggressive in her communication. Nevertheless, she makes a valid point. Nothing in the debate warrants dismissing the argument. If a voter finds the style really objectionable, at best he can deduct S & G or conduct, anything else can be legitimately considered votebombing.
"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
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:16:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:08:09 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 7:01:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:54:37 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:15:19 AM, kazmo wrote:
Okay, I see, I'll just have to wait until the voting period. Thanks!

So you're waiting to organize votebombing on your debate? You can't get people to vote against someone because the debaters don't like him or what he does. He didn't violate any of the rules.

Hello royalpaladin,

It's about conduct, which is part of a debate.

LOL, calling someone "brother" doesn't violate conduct. He didn't insult his opponent and as far as I am aware, did not plagiarize or cheat. Formatting the debate in a weird way doesn't violate conduct either.


Did I say he violated conduct? Did I say he did any of these things?

Yes, at 6:54:37 AM (central time) you very explicitly said that he had a "minor conduct violation". Do you mind telling me exactly what this "minor conduct violation" was, especially since now you are saying that you never said he violated conduct in the first place?
I'm glad that you said this, however, because I feel that "conduct" has just become a mechanism for voters to abuse the voting system. It lets people think that they can vote other people down for any reason they like, which is not permissible. Like, I know people assign conduct points to the other debater for conduct outside the debate, which is complete bogus. "Conduct" basically means "do I like the other debater?"


You may feel that way, I don't.
Good for you. Would you like a cookie? Saying that you disagree doesn't mean that my argument is negated.

Plus, I'm not making "sweeping generalizations" about all voters. I just said that people actually do stupid things like that. I didn't say that everyone does that. You're doing a terrible job of debating semantics, lol.
I think "conduct" should be eliminated. If conduct actually is poor (like insulting, plagiarism, or cheating), the person with poor conduct gets a loss anyways.

OK

I have heard the term brothers & sisters in a formal spoken debate.

Ok, so then why does this violate conduct?

Again did I say it violates conduct?

You said it was a minor poor conduct thing. So now that you agree it isn't, please explain to me why you said that.
Given there is a section of ones vote dedicated to conduct, a voter who supported the argument made but not the conduct is able to vote accordingly. Which in my opinion would be the fairest and most appropriate way to handle minor poor conduct such as this.

It's not poor conduct to calls someone "brother", LOL. You can't vote against someone just because you want to. He didn't violate any debate rules.

Yes but the quetion is 'who has better conduct?'

Not, 'who's conduct was poor?'

If neither debater violated the conduct in the debate, then nobody had better conduct. You can't just arbitrarily say that something violated conduct if it didn't. If neither debater violated debate conduct rules, you don't assign the point to either debater.

Seriously, I think we need to have some sort of voter education thing before people are permitted to be confirmed to vote . . . I don't think you understand how assigning points is supposed to work.
I would submit that the voters will choose according to the question,

Well, they better justify it, because if they don't, they'll find that they're unable to vote. :)
To accuse the OP of organizing a vote bomb seems a little harsh, it's a question that deserves an answer.

Well, it looks like that's what he's doing. "Waah, I'm losing. Please don't vote me down! He called me brother! What a meanie!"

It might look like that, but without further evidence I don't think the assertion can be supported.

Good for you. Would you like another cookie? I was just speculating. I wasn't pretending to do anything else.
Kindest Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:25:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whatever, LOL. I'm not really going to bother anymore. Votebomb away :) I'll just sit back and watch this play out while I wait for thett3 to come back.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:27:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:16:46 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 7:08:09 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 7:01:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:54:37 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:49:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:15:19 AM, kazmo wrote:
Okay, I see, I'll just have to wait until the voting period. Thanks!

So you're waiting to organize votebombing on your debate? You can't get people to vote against someone because the debaters don't like him or what he does. He didn't violate any of the rules.

Hello royalpaladin,

It's about conduct, which is part of a debate.

LOL, calling someone "brother" doesn't violate conduct. He didn't insult his opponent and as far as I am aware, did not plagiarize or cheat. Formatting the debate in a weird way doesn't violate conduct either.


Did I say he violated conduct? Did I say he did any of these things?

Yes, at 6:54:37 AM (central time) you very explicitly said that he had a "minor conduct violation". Do you mind telling me exactly what this "minor conduct violation" was, especially since now you are saying that you never said he violated conduct in the first place?
I'm glad that you said this, however, because I feel that "conduct" has just become a mechanism for voters to abuse the voting system. It lets people think that they can vote other people down for any reason they like, which is not permissible. Like, I know people assign conduct points to the other debater for conduct outside the debate, which is complete bogus. "Conduct" basically means "do I like the other debater?"


You may feel that way, I don't.
Good for you. Would you like a cookie? Saying that you disagree doesn't mean that my argument is negated.

Plus, I'm not making "sweeping generalizations" about all voters. I just said that people actually do stupid things like that. I didn't say that everyone does that. You're doing a terrible job of debating semantics, lol.
I think "conduct" should be eliminated. If conduct actually is poor (like insulting, plagiarism, or cheating), the person with poor conduct gets a loss anyways.

OK

I have heard the term brothers & sisters in a formal spoken debate.

Ok, so then why does this violate conduct?

Again did I say it violates conduct?

You said it was a minor poor conduct thing. So now that you agree it isn't, please explain to me why you said that.
Given there is a section of ones vote dedicated to conduct, a voter who supported the argument made but not the conduct is able to vote accordingly. Which in my opinion would be the fairest and most appropriate way to handle minor poor conduct such as this.

It's not poor conduct to calls someone "brother", LOL. You can't vote against someone just because you want to. He didn't violate any debate rules.

Yes but the quetion is 'who has better conduct?'

Not, 'who's conduct was poor?'

If neither debater violated the conduct in the debate, then nobody had better conduct. You can't just arbitrarily say that something violated conduct if it didn't. If neither debater violated debate conduct rules, you don't assign the point to either debater.

Seriously, I think we need to have some sort of voter education thing before people are permitted to be confirmed to vote . . . I don't think you understand how assigning points is supposed to work.
I would submit that the voters will choose according to the question,

Well, they better justify it, because if they don't, they'll find that they're unable to vote. :)
To accuse the OP of organizing a vote bomb seems a little harsh, it's a question that deserves an answer.

Well, it looks like that's what he's doing. "Waah, I'm losing. Please don't vote me down! He called me brother! What a meanie!"

It might look like that, but without further evidence I don't think the assertion can be supported.

Good for you. Would you like another cookie? I was just speculating. I wasn't pretending to do anything else.
Kindest Regards,
Ben

OK let's do it your way.

1

Yes, at 6:54:37 AM (central time) you very explicitly said that he had a "minor conduct violation". Do you mind telling me exactly what this "minor conduct violation" was, especially since now you are saying that you never said he violated conduct in the first place?

Yes I did, minor, meaning

mi"nor
/G2;mīnər/
Adjective
Lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance.
Noun
A person under the age of full legal responsibility.
Synonyms
adjective. small - petty - lesser - secondary - less - junior
noun. infant

That is very different to accusing him of conduct violation.

If you don't see the difference I recommend a dictionary.

2

You may feel that way, I don't.
Good for you. Would you like a cookie? Saying that you disagree doesn't mean that my argument is negated.

You're right, perhapes if you manage the entire quote, though instead of taking it out of context...

3

I have heard the term brothers & sisters in a formal spoken debate.

Ok, so then why does this violate conduct?

I would consider it a minor violation of conduct, as I don't recall either of the debators being genetically related, it's purposeful misinformation.

4

Given there is a section of ones vote dedicated to conduct, a voter who supported the argument made but not the conduct is able to vote accordingly. Which in my opinion would be the fairest and most appropriate way to handle minor poor conduct such as this.

It's not poor conduct to calls someone "brother", LOL. You can't vote against someone just because you want to. He didn't violate any debate rules.

Yes but the quetion is 'who has better conduct?'

Not, 'who's conduct was poor?'

If neither debater violated the conduct in the debate, then nobody had better conduct. You can't just arbitrarily say that something violated conduct if it didn't. If neither debater violated debate conduct rules, you don't assign the point to either debater.

Seriously, I think we need to have some sort of voter education thing before people are permitted to be confirmed to vote . . . I don't think you understand how assigning points is supposed to work.

I think we should have basic English tests so people can use language properly when debating.

We don't all get we what we want.

5

To accuse the OP of organizing a vote bomb seems a little harsh, it's a question that deserves an answer.

Well, it looks like that's what he's doing. "Waah, I'm losing. Please don't vote me down! He called me brother! What a meanie!"

It might look like that, but without further evidence I don't think the assertion can be supported.

Good for you. Would you like another cookie? I was just speculating. I wasn't pretending to do anything else.

Spectating/Accusing, apparently these words are now interchangable.

Well done.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:32:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:25:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Whatever, LOL. I'm not really going to bother anymore. Votebomb away :) I'll just sit back and watch this play out while I wait for thett3 to come back.

Yet another accusation.

I don't even have voting privileges, yet somehow I can vote bomb, I am doing well, I had never even heard of the term until 30 minutes ago.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:33:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wait, LOL, so calling someone "brother" is misinformation? You're really grasping at straws here, LOLOLOLOL. You admitted in this thread that you've heard the terms "brother" and "sister" used in formal debate, so it's obviously accepted as normal conduct. If you look at the dictionary definition, you can see that it doesn't just imply a genetic relationship:

efinition of BROTHER
1
a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another
2
one related to another by common ties or interests
3
a fellow member "used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations
4
one of a type similar to another
5
a : kinsman
b : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : soul brother
6
a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work
b : a member of a men's religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders
See brother defined for English-language learners "
See brother defined for kids "

"Brother" was very clearly meant as a term of respect, not as a way of providing false information to the voters. He called his opponent "brother"; he didn't say "my opponent is my brother". He clearly felt that he and his opponent had common ties and interests.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:34:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:32:19 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 7:25:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Whatever, LOL. I'm not really going to bother anymore. Votebomb away :) I'll just sit back and watch this play out while I wait for thett3 to come back.

Yet another accusation.

I don't even have voting privileges, yet somehow I can vote bomb, I am doing well, I had never even heard of the term until 30 minutes ago.

Regards,
Ben

Good, I'm glad that you can't vote. I hope it stays that way, and after seeing your pathetic little semantic games, I'll be informing airmax about you.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:35:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Playing semantic games (and being terrible at it, no less) doesn't make you intelligent. It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:37:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:33:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Wait, LOL, so calling someone "brother" is misinformation? You're really grasping at straws here, LOLOLOLOL. You admitted in this thread that you've heard the terms "brother" and "sister" used in formal debate, so it's obviously accepted as normal conduct. If you look at the dictionary definition, you can see that it doesn't just imply a genetic relationship:

efinition of BROTHER
1
a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another
2
one related to another by common ties or interests
3
a fellow member "used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations
4
one of a type similar to another
5
a : kinsman
b : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : soul brother
6
a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work
b : a member of a men's religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders
See brother defined for English-language learners "
See brother defined for kids "

"Brother" was very clearly meant as a term of respect, not as a way of providing false information to the voters. He called his opponent "brother"; he didn't say "my opponent is my brother". He clearly felt that he and his opponent had common ties and interests.

Did I say at any point whether I agree that in that debate it was acceptable.

I've seen a man rob a house before, that doesn't make it acceptable when someone then repeats it?

Did I say whether it was accepted by the moderator - did I even hint at what happened afterwards?

Grasping at straws - Another unfounded accusation.

Really 22,000+ posts of this?
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:41:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:37:18 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/15/2013 7:33:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Wait, LOL, so calling someone "brother" is misinformation? You're really grasping at straws here, LOLOLOLOL. You admitted in this thread that you've heard the terms "brother" and "sister" used in formal debate, so it's obviously accepted as normal conduct. If you look at the dictionary definition, you can see that it doesn't just imply a genetic relationship:

efinition of BROTHER
1
a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another
2
one related to another by common ties or interests
3
a fellow member "used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations
4
one of a type similar to another
5
a : kinsman
b : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : soul brother
6
a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work
b : a member of a men's religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders
See brother defined for English-language learners "
See brother defined for kids "

"Brother" was very clearly meant as a term of respect, not as a way of providing false information to the voters. He called his opponent "brother"; he didn't say "my opponent is my brother". He clearly felt that he and his opponent had common ties and interests.

Did I say at any point whether I agree that in that debate it was acceptable.

It doesn't matter whether or not you personally found it acceptable. Your personal analysis is entirely immaterial. What matters is whether or not it actually is acceptable.
I've seen a man rob a house before, that doesn't make it acceptable when someone then repeats it?

You implied that it was acceptable when you said that you have seen it used before.
Did I say whether it was accepted by the moderator - did I even hint at what happened afterwards?

Well, pardon me for assuming that you were drawing a conclusion from your useless information then. Next time, I won't give you the benefit of the doubt and I'll just assume that your information is totally worthless. It won't be a bad assumption based on what you are doing right now. If you want to make a point about something, then you should provide all of the information, not expect me to read a crystal ball and figure out what your moronic point is.
Grasping at straws - Another unfounded accusation.

Really 22,000+ posts of this?
Did you actually read my posts? You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. Go on and continue failing at playing dumb semantic games and posting slivers of information and then saying your opponent is stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for.