Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

If you are going to debate, then just do it.

Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).

There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.

what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.

Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.

I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?

There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.

what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!


SHOTS FIRED
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:42:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:37:45 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
You know those headaches you get sometimes? It's your brain struggling to comprehend that you're such a dumbass.

You never get headaches? Wow! :D
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:42:41 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:37:45 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
You know those headaches you get sometimes? It's your brain struggling to comprehend that you're such a dumbass.

You never get headaches? Wow! :D

Incorrect association. Dumbass.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?

If you refuse to fight the old lady when she begs you to do so in an environment such as a website dedicated to doing as such, then you are a coward.
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:45:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:42:41 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:37:45 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
You know those headaches you get sometimes? It's your brain struggling to comprehend that you're such a dumbass.

You never get headaches? Wow! :D

Incorrect association. Dumbass.

You don't get them either? wow!
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?

If you refuse to fight the old lady when she begs you to do so in an environment such as a website dedicated to doing as such, then you are a coward.

It's not that I refuse - it's that I choose someone who is a better debater. I'd gladly debate that first debater, but I don't debate to win. I debate to learn and justify my opinions.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:54:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:50:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:

It's not that I refuse - it's that I choose someone who is a better debater. I'd gladly debate that first debater, but I don't debate to win. I debate to learn and justify my opinions.

SHOTS FIRED BACK! I think...
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:55:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:50:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?

If you refuse to fight the old lady when she begs you to do so in an environment such as a website dedicated to doing as such, then you are a coward.

It's not that I refuse - it's that I choose someone who is a better debater. I'd gladly debate that first debater, but I don't debate to win. I debate to learn and justify my opinions.

Baby.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:59:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:55:15 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:50:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?

If you refuse to fight the old lady when she begs you to do so in an environment such as a website dedicated to doing as such, then you are a coward.

It's not that I refuse - it's that I choose someone who is a better debater. I'd gladly debate that first debater, but I don't debate to win. I debate to learn and justify my opinions.:
Baby.

Baby: "An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

So wanting to debate a stronger debater is infantile? Also, read the bolded part again.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:59:05 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:55:15 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:50:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?

If you refuse to fight the old lady when she begs you to do so in an environment such as a website dedicated to doing as such, then you are a coward.

It's not that I refuse - it's that I choose someone who is a better debater. I'd gladly debate that first debater, but I don't debate to win. I debate to learn and justify my opinions.:
Baby.

Baby: "An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

So wanting to debate a stronger debater is infantile? Also, read the bolded part again.

Subutai: "Idiot" (http://noonecares.com...)
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:02:19 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:59:05 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:55:15 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:50:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:48:54 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:43:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:25:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).


Those "criteria" are not put in place to deter good debaters, but to deter bad debaters whom it would be a waste to debate. In other words, it's not fear - it's the opposite of it - the anticipation of a good debate.

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


That's not how it works. You don't have to have a stellar debate record. I usually choose someone by experience and overall debate capabilities (by looking at his or her arguments). However, if you sound like a good debater, I'll debate you too. It's more of a policy of preventing trolls from accepting and choosing the best debater instead of weeding out everyone below me. It's generally harder to debate someone with an ELO of 4000 (MassiveDump aside...) than someone with an ELO of 2000. It is more courageous to debate someone of the former qualification.
There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.


That prevents noobs and trolls from derailing a serious debate into a troll debate. While troll debates are funny, it's no excuse to derail a debate.

so you label people as noobs and trolls and think that you have the ultimate right to judge if a debate was derailed TOO FAR according to you?! In that case any debate could be deemed troll-like if you happened to feel that way all of a sudden since it's purely subjective.


Sure. It is subjective. But then again, it's my standards and my debate. Trolls aren't bad debaters, but debaters who will make a serious debate into a troll debate. I'm open to any serious debater.
what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another. What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.


Utter cowardice.

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.


That's because if you want to make a debate a specifically troll debate, you should make other debaters that it's just a troll debate.
I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Troll debates and serious debates are two very different debate formats. One revolves around using semantics, reductio ad absurdum, or other techniques that troll debates use. Troll debates' goal is to either get an easy win or to have fun. The other revolves around using logic, evidence, and rhetoric to create arguments around a serious debate topic.

Defining that a debate is one or the other type will make the purpose of a debate clear.

Haha, whatever man. You are a coward!

Coward: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you're saying that seeking a better debater is cowardly, you're also implying that wanting to fight a Navy SEAL instead of an elderly woman is also cowardly. Problem logic?

If you refuse to fight the old lady when she begs you to do so in an environment such as a website dedicated to doing as such, then you are a coward.

It's not that I refuse - it's that I choose someone who is a better debater. I'd gladly debate that first debater, but I don't debate to win. I debate to learn and justify my opinions.:
Baby.

Baby: "An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

So wanting to debate a stronger debater is infantile? Also, read the bolded part again.

Subutai: "Idiot" (http://noonecares.com...)

Subutai: "The primary military strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ogedei Khan." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Idiot: "A person of profound mental retardation..." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Subutai =/= idiot.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:08:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
People with low ELO's almost always forfeit or plagiarize. I'm debating worthy opponents, and I confess that I don't give a damn what you think about it.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:08:26 PM, Sargon wrote:
People with low ELO's almost always forfeit or plagiarize. I'm debating worthy opponents, and I confess that I don't give a damn what you think about it.

Lol, nice summarization.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:41:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).

Oh this will be funny as hell

There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.

No idiot, the person who makes the debate holds the right to allow semantics and trolling or not since on here people can make troll debates where semantics are encouraged.

what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another.

Well there happen to people on here who *gasps* like to debate seriously :O

What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.

Because lawyering around here is just a lowly form of trolling....

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

So that idiots like you who think they know how the site works can be barred from acceptimg serious debates because you'll just screw things up :)

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.

Making a troll debate for fun confounds you after you just went on record saying people should always be allowed to troll on debates? You must be a special kind of stupid....

I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate. Everyone has their own style and if you aren't smart enough to win debates with the rules that people set, then go be stupid somewhere else
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
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:44:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:41:52 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/16/2013 6:26:08 PM, Irresistable wrote:
These immature brats on this site are too many. They either make criteria so that only a select group of debaters can debate them (indicating fear of those rejected thwarting them).

Oh this will be funny as hell

There are also these snobs who are like 'no semantics', 'no trolling' and 'no lawyering'. who has the right to define what is twisting a definition too far? Oh that's right the one who votes, meaning there was no point making that rule in the damn first place since it doesn't stop those things happening.

No idiot, the person who makes the debate holds the right to allow semantics and trolling or not since on here people can make troll debates where semantics are encouraged.

what is trolling to one man is simply entertaining debate style to another.

Well there happen to people on here who *gasps* like to debate seriously :O

What is semantic abuse to one guy is intellectual linguistic warfare to another. What is lawyering to one man, is the most ingenious derailment mankind has ever seen in debate and thus would award that person points but instead they 'broke a rule' and are punished for their ingenuity.

Because lawyering around here is just a lowly form of trolling....

If you're going to debate why be such a selective prick in the first place?

So that idiots like you who think they know how the site works can be barred from acceptimg serious debates because you'll just screw things up :)

Even worse are people like Imabench who make troll debates and THEN make it impossible to accept and set a RULE that you HAVE TO troll and not take it seriously. That's just pure idiocy.

Making a troll debate for fun confounds you after you just went on record saying people should always be allowed to troll on debates? You must be a special kind of stupid....

I'm just really perplexed at it. If you want to join a debate site why are you afraid to debate all debating styles and all tactical maneuvers? It's pathetic.

Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate. Everyone has their own style and if you aren't smart enough to win debates with the rules that people set, then go be stupid somewhere else

"Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate." Well said. Same to you. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Thanks for agreeing. Much appreciated.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:52:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:44:56 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:41:52 PM, imabench wrote:

Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate. Everyone has their own style and if you aren't smart enough to win debates with the rules that people set, then go be stupid somewhere else

"Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate." Well said. Same to you. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Thanks for agreeing. Much appreciated.

No you massive dumba**, people are allowed to set up debates however they want and require arguments to be limited to any form they prefer, which is what you are against just because you're a whiny little kid
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
rajun
Posts: 346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:52:17 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:44:56 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:41:52 PM, imabench wrote:

Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate. Everyone has their own style and if you aren't smart enough to win debates with the rules that people set, then go be stupid somewhere else

"Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate." Well said. Same to you. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Thanks for agreeing. Much appreciated.

No you massive dumba**, people are allowed to set up debates however they want and require arguments to be limited to any form they prefer, which is what you are against just because you're a whiny little kid
///..................................\\\
I agree. This might be DDO but a little fun is always needed and people like imabench are doing it for this site while airmax is doing the serious stuff...move on irresistable cause you really are that.
Only cool guys can see this....
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:52:17 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:44:56 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:41:52 PM, imabench wrote:

Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate. Everyone has their own style and if you aren't smart enough to win debates with the rules that people set, then go be stupid somewhere else

"Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate." Well said. Same to you. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Thanks for agreeing. Much appreciated.

No you massive dumba**, people are allowed to set up debates however they want and require arguments to be limited to any form they prefer, which is what you are against just because you're a whiny little kid

I know they are entitled to do it, I just think it's stupid. I'm entitled to my opinion thanks.
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:14:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:52:17 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:44:56 PM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:41:52 PM, imabench wrote:

Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate. Everyone has their own style and if you aren't smart enough to win debates with the rules that people set, then go be stupid somewhere else

"Well Little sh*ts like you don't decide how others should debate." Well said. Same to you. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Thanks for agreeing. Much appreciated.

No you massive dumba**, people are allowed to set up debates however they want and require arguments to be limited to any form they prefer, which is what you are against just because you're a whiny little kid

Imabench came strapped and follows up.
MORE SHOTS FIRED!
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 2:03:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


1. You've been here a week. That isn't long enough to appreciate how irritating new members can be (especially, for the record, ones who come to the forums immediately upon arrival demanding we change everything, despite blatantly talking out of their a$$). So pipe down, pipsqueak.

2. Many people such as myself put restrictions on who can accept debates because we get tired of newbies accepting our debates and then forfeiting on us. That happened to me four times in a row. I come here to win debates on merit, not just by default because my opponent was incompetent.
I'm back (ish).
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 2:31:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 2:03:25 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


1. You've been here a week. That isn't long enough to appreciate how irritating new members can be (especially, for the record, ones who come to the forums immediately upon arrival demanding we change everything, despite blatantly talking out of their a$$). So pipe down, pipsqueak.

I refuse to pipe down. thanks for the offer though.

2. Many people such as myself put restrictions on who can accept debates because we get tired of newbies accepting our debates and then forfeiting on us. That happened to me four times in a row. I come here to win debates on merit, not just by default because my opponent was incompetent.

Aw what a shame go cry like a baby about having to debate noobs because you're incapable of handling them. :) Baby.
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 2:42:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 2:31:18 AM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/17/2013 2:03:25 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


1. You've been here a week. That isn't long enough to appreciate how irritating new members can be (especially, for the record, ones who come to the forums immediately upon arrival demanding we change everything, despite blatantly talking out of their a$$). So pipe down, pipsqueak.

I refuse to pipe down. thanks for the offer though.

2. Many people such as myself put restrictions on who can accept debates because we get tired of newbies accepting our debates and then forfeiting on us. That happened to me four times in a row. I come here to win debates on merit, not just by default because my opponent was incompetent.

Aw what a shame go cry like a baby about having to debate noobs because you're incapable of handling them. :) Baby.

No, you twerp, the point is that you DON'T debate the noobs because they accept what could have been a perfectly decent debate and then forfeit every round when they realise you're going to make ACTUAL ARGUMENTS.
I'm back (ish).
Irresistable
Posts: 224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 2:48:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 2:42:35 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 8/17/2013 2:31:18 AM, Irresistable wrote:
At 8/17/2013 2:03:25 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:30:35 PM, Irresistable wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are to deem a debater too bad for your standard are you like some elitist b*tch who think that Elo rank determines everything? Are you the type of guy who thinks that if someone loses a lot of debates they are therefore incapable of being so amazing once in a while? You think it's brave to cower away from debaters who have a high loss percentage? Hahaha, you think you are brave because you don't allow anyone to debate you if the current ranking systems deem them less capable than you regardless of their ability tat that particular resolution in and of itself?


1. You've been here a week. That isn't long enough to appreciate how irritating new members can be (especially, for the record, ones who come to the forums immediately upon arrival demanding we change everything, despite blatantly talking out of their a$$). So pipe down, pipsqueak.

I refuse to pipe down. thanks for the offer though.

2. Many people such as myself put restrictions on who can accept debates because we get tired of newbies accepting our debates and then forfeiting on us. That happened to me four times in a row. I come here to win debates on merit, not just by default because my opponent was incompetent.

Aw what a shame go cry like a baby about having to debate noobs because you're incapable of handling them. :) Baby.

No, you twerp, the point is that you DON'T debate the noobs because they accept what could have been a perfectly decent debate and then forfeit every round when they realise you're going to make ACTUAL ARGUMENTS.

Hahahha you are so scared of the noobs!
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 3:53:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please just refine this into an actual debate, then insult each other in there instead of on the forums.

Heck you could even set a rule having the best fallacies support (instead of hinder) argument votes.
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...
rajun
Posts: 346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 4:16:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 3:53:16 AM, Ragnar wrote:
Please just refine this into an actual debate, then insult each other in there instead of on the forums.

Heck you could even set a rule having the best fallacies support (instead of hinder) argument votes.

lol
Only cool guys can see this....