Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict)

NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 1:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
THIS IS ONLY A REFERENCE TO THE NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict).

NDRE: Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette.

---- Start of document ----

NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict)

CRITICAL RULES:

PREFACE: Any violation of the rules in the "Critical Rules" section should be penalized by the voters who are allowed to penalize the debater with a range of penalties ranging from the loss of the conduct point to a seven point loss. This penalty, however, should be ignored if one or more violations were committed by both participants(Pro and Con).

A.1.1 Plagiarism is not allowed. Plagiarism is not only copying/pasting exact passages but it also could involve copying/pasting material with a few changes while using the same methods of presentation of the original author such as linguistic style, similar diagrams, same sources, etc.

* To reference large passages, it is advised to use block quotations with proper references.

A.1.2 Images which are screenshots of passages of text are not allowed, unless the text within the images/screenshots, after being added to the text, does not exceed the character limit allowed to the debater by more than 400 characters.

A.1.3 Providing more than five images per round is not allowed as pictures can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence, even if they didn't contain any text.

A.1.4 Providing more than three videos per round is not allowed as videos can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence. However, the total amount of minutes in all the video(s) should be less than 30 minutes as a total to be accepted.

A.1.5 Using URL-shortners or any form of URL hiding is not allowed. Citations should be present in the text itself and not in the comments, as some readers will be discouraged to find those citations in the comments section, especially in debates that have many comments.

A.1.6 If Con initiated the debate and didn't use his/her first round to argue, then Pro cannot argue in the final round but he must only say "As agreed."

A.1.7 Forfeits are not allowed.

A.1.8 The instigator of the debate is not allowed to introduce any new conditions on the format of the debate(Burden of proof, acceptance round, etc) in rounds other than the first round. The contender is prohibited from introducing any conditions on the format of the debate which contradict the ones already present in the opening statement of the instigator. However, new additions by the contender are not prohibited but they are not obligatory to his opponent as he did not initiate the debate.

A.1.9 Any additional conditions, rules or definitions in the opening statement of the debate must be treated as critical rules that must be followed. Moreover, the instigator is allowed to remove certain critical rules in this document by clearly saying in the opening statement that he is following the NDRE lv.1.5 without this and that rule.

ETIQUETTE STANDARDS:

PREFACE: Any violation of the standards in this section results only in the loss of the conduct point.

A.2.1 Each participant should thoroughly read the citations of her/his opponent before jumping into wrong conclusions and accusations. Any false accusation about any sources that is proven to be false is considered a violation of the etiquette standards.

A.2.2 Personal insults are not allowed if there is no justification that would suffice such personal attacks. This, however, doesn't apply on debates where the competitors are meant to insult each other, or the debate itself is about someone to begin with.

A.2.3 The use of the comment section to argue against someone(whether participant or not) by any of the participants while the debate is in the debating or voting period is considered a violation.

A.2.4 Intentional lies and blatant fabrications that are clearly exposed are not allowed from both participants, and if any are discovered, the perpetrator is to be penalized for such attempts.

A.2.5 "Poisoning the well" by calling your opponent a liar/deceiver and considering everything he says to be untrustworthy is prohibited and goes against the etiquette standards. This is because it is simply making many genetic fallacies that target a speaker in a personal manner as he is mostly the source of his words.

---- End of document ----
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2013 1:53:28 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
THIS IS ONLY A REFERENCE TO THE NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict).

NDRE: Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette.

---- Start of document ----

NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict)

CRITICAL RULES:

PREFACE: Any violation of the rules in the "Critical Rules" section should be penalized by the voters who are allowed to penalize the debater with a range of penalties ranging from the loss of the conduct point to a seven point loss. This penalty, however, should be ignored if one or more violations were committed by both participants(Pro and Con).

A.1.1 Plagiarism is not allowed. Plagiarism is not only copying/pasting exact passages but it also could involve copying/pasting material with a few changes while using the same methods of presentation of the original author such as linguistic style, similar diagrams, same sources, etc.

* To reference large passages, it is advised to use block quotations with proper references.

A.1.2 Images which are screenshots of passages of text are not allowed, unless the text within the images/screenshots, after being added to the text, does not exceed the character limit allowed to the debater by more than 400 characters.

A.1.3 Providing more than five images per round is not allowed as pictures can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence, even if they didn't contain any text.

A.1.4 Providing more than three videos per round is not allowed as videos can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence. However, the total amount of minutes in all the video(s) should be less than 30 minutes as a total to be accepted.

A.1.5 Using URL-shortners or any form of URL hiding is not allowed. Citations should be present in the text itself and not in the comments, as some readers will be discouraged to find those citations in the comments section, especially in debates that have many comments.

A.1.6 If Con initiated the debate and didn't use his/her first round to argue, then Pro cannot argue in the final round but he must only say "As agreed."

A.1.7 Forfeits are not allowed.

A.1.8 The instigator of the debate is not allowed to introduce any new conditions on the format of the debate(Burden of proof, acceptance round, etc) in rounds other than the first round. The contender is prohibited from introducing any conditions on the format of the debate which contradict the ones already present in the opening statement of the instigator. However, new additions by the contender are not prohibited but they are not obligatory to his opponent as he did not initiate the debate.

A.1.9 Any additional conditions, rules or definitions in the opening statement of the debate must be treated as critical rules that must be followed. Moreover, the instigator is allowed to remove certain critical rules in this document by clearly saying in the opening statement that he is following the NDRE lv.1.5 without this and that rule.


ETIQUETTE STANDARDS:

PREFACE: Any violation of the standards in this section results only in the loss of the conduct point.

A.2.1 Each participant should thoroughly read the citations of her/his opponent before jumping into wrong conclusions and accusations. Any false accusation about any sources that is proven to be false is considered a violation of the etiquette standards.

A.2.2 Personal insults are not allowed if there is no justification that would suffice such personal attacks. This, however, doesn't apply on debates where the competitors are meant to insult each other, or the debate itself is about someone to begin with.

A.2.3 The use of the comment section to argue against someone(whether participant or not) by any of the participants while the debate is in the debating or voting period is considered a violation.

A.2.4 Intentional lies and blatant fabrications that are clearly exposed are not allowed from both participants, and if any are discovered, the perpetrator is to be penalized for such attempts.

A.2.5 "Poisoning the well" by calling your opponent a liar/deceiver and considering everything he says to be untrustworthy is prohibited and goes against the etiquette standards. This is because it is simply making many genetic fallacies that target a speaker in a personal manner as he is mostly the source of his words.

---- End of document ----

I see that no one has posted to your forum.

You know why?

They all know you are full of it.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:20:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 5:14:14 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I see that no one has posted to your forum.

You know why?

They all know you are full of it.

I think this is the first thing that GWL has ever said that I agree with.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 5:09:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 5:14:14 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:53:28 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
THIS IS ONLY A REFERENCE TO THE NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict).

NDRE: Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette.

---- Start of document ----

NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict)

CRITICAL RULES:

PREFACE: Any violation of the rules in the "Critical Rules" section should be penalized by the voters who are allowed to penalize the debater with a range of penalties ranging from the loss of the conduct point to a seven point loss. This penalty, however, should be ignored if one or more violations were committed by both participants(Pro and Con).

A.1.1 Plagiarism is not allowed. Plagiarism is not only copying/pasting exact passages but it also could involve copying/pasting material with a few changes while using the same methods of presentation of the original author such as linguistic style, similar diagrams, same sources, etc.

* To reference large passages, it is advised to use block quotations with proper references.

A.1.2 Images which are screenshots of passages of text are not allowed, unless the text within the images/screenshots, after being added to the text, does not exceed the character limit allowed to the debater by more than 400 characters.

A.1.3 Providing more than five images per round is not allowed as pictures can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence, even if they didn't contain any text.

A.1.4 Providing more than three videos per round is not allowed as videos can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence. However, the total amount of minutes in all the video(s) should be less than 30 minutes as a total to be accepted.

A.1.5 Using URL-shortners or any form of URL hiding is not allowed. Citations should be present in the text itself and not in the comments, as some readers will be discouraged to find those citations in the comments section, especially in debates that have many comments.

A.1.6 If Con initiated the debate and didn't use his/her first round to argue, then Pro cannot argue in the final round but he must only say "As agreed."

A.1.7 Forfeits are not allowed.

A.1.8 The instigator of the debate is not allowed to introduce any new conditions on the format of the debate(Burden of proof, acceptance round, etc) in rounds other than the first round. The contender is prohibited from introducing any conditions on the format of the debate which contradict the ones already present in the opening statement of the instigator. However, new additions by the contender are not prohibited but they are not obligatory to his opponent as he did not initiate the debate.

A.1.9 Any additional conditions, rules or definitions in the opening statement of the debate must be treated as critical rules that must be followed. Moreover, the instigator is allowed to remove certain critical rules in this document by clearly saying in the opening statement that he is following the NDRE lv.1.5 without this and that rule.


ETIQUETTE STANDARDS:

PREFACE: Any violation of the standards in this section results only in the loss of the conduct point.

A.2.1 Each participant should thoroughly read the citations of her/his opponent before jumping into wrong conclusions and accusations. Any false accusation about any sources that is proven to be false is considered a violation of the etiquette standards.

A.2.2 Personal insults are not allowed if there is no justification that would suffice such personal attacks. This, however, doesn't apply on debates where the competitors are meant to insult each other, or the debate itself is about someone to begin with.

A.2.3 The use of the comment section to argue against someone(whether participant or not) by any of the participants while the debate is in the debating or voting period is considered a violation.

A.2.4 Intentional lies and blatant fabrications that are clearly exposed are not allowed from both participants, and if any are discovered, the perpetrator is to be penalized for such attempts.

A.2.5 "Poisoning the well" by calling your opponent a liar/deceiver and considering everything he says to be untrustworthy is prohibited and goes against the etiquette standards. This is because it is simply making many genetic fallacies that target a speaker in a personal manner as he is mostly the source of his words.

---- End of document ----

I see that no one has posted to your forum.

You know why?

They all know you are full of it.

The first time I suggested making an NDRE, I got responses. This is just a reference to use in my debates, which is not meant to get any responses, and I have already had debates using that NDRE, so I GUESS I'm just going to sit here and laugh at your reasoning.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 8:07:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 5:09:19 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 2/6/2014 5:14:14 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:53:28 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
THIS IS ONLY A REFERENCE TO THE NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict).

NDRE: Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette.

---- Start of document ----

NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict)

CRITICAL RULES:

PREFACE: Any violation of the rules in the "Critical Rules" section should be penalized by the voters who are allowed to penalize the debater with a range of penalties ranging from the loss of the conduct point to a seven point loss. This penalty, however, should be ignored if one or more violations were committed by both participants(Pro and Con).

A.1.1 Plagiarism is not allowed. Plagiarism is not only copying/pasting exact passages but it also could involve copying/pasting material with a few changes while using the same methods of presentation of the original author such as linguistic style, similar diagrams, same sources, etc.

* To reference large passages, it is advised to use block quotations with proper references.

A.1.2 Images which are screenshots of passages of text are not allowed, unless the text within the images/screenshots, after being added to the text, does not exceed the character limit allowed to the debater by more than 400 characters.

A.1.3 Providing more than five images per round is not allowed as pictures can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence, even if they didn't contain any text.

A.1.4 Providing more than three videos per round is not allowed as videos can themselves be considered further arguments and evidence. However, the total amount of minutes in all the video(s) should be less than 30 minutes as a total to be accepted.

A.1.5 Using URL-shortners or any form of URL hiding is not allowed. Citations should be present in the text itself and not in the comments, as some readers will be discouraged to find those citations in the comments section, especially in debates that have many comments.

A.1.6 If Con initiated the debate and didn't use his/her first round to argue, then Pro cannot argue in the final round but he must only say "As agreed."

A.1.7 Forfeits are not allowed.

A.1.8 The instigator of the debate is not allowed to introduce any new conditions on the format of the debate(Burden of proof, acceptance round, etc) in rounds other than the first round. The contender is prohibited from introducing any conditions on the format of the debate which contradict the ones already present in the opening statement of the instigator. However, new additions by the contender are not prohibited but they are not obligatory to his opponent as he did not initiate the debate.

A.1.9 Any additional conditions, rules or definitions in the opening statement of the debate must be treated as critical rules that must be followed. Moreover, the instigator is allowed to remove certain critical rules in this document by clearly saying in the opening statement that he is following the NDRE lv.1.5 without this and that rule.


ETIQUETTE STANDARDS:

PREFACE: Any violation of the standards in this section results only in the loss of the conduct point.

A.2.1 Each participant should thoroughly read the citations of her/his opponent before jumping into wrong conclusions and accusations. Any false accusation about any sources that is proven to be false is considered a violation of the etiquette standards.

A.2.2 Personal insults are not allowed if there is no justification that would suffice such personal attacks. This, however, doesn't apply on debates where the competitors are meant to insult each other, or the debate itself is about someone to begin with.

A.2.3 The use of the comment section to argue against someone(whether participant or not) by any of the participants while the debate is in the debating or voting period is considered a violation.

A.2.4 Intentional lies and blatant fabrications that are clearly exposed are not allowed from both participants, and if any are discovered, the perpetrator is to be penalized for such attempts.

A.2.5 "Poisoning the well" by calling your opponent a liar/deceiver and considering everything he says to be untrustworthy is prohibited and goes against the etiquette standards. This is because it is simply making many genetic fallacies that target a speaker in a personal manner as he is mostly the source of his words.

---- End of document ----

I see that no one has posted to your forum.

You know why?

They all know you are full of it.

The first time I suggested making an NDRE, I got responses. This is just a reference to use in my debates, which is not meant to get any responses, and I have already had debates using that NDRE, so I GUESS I'm just going to sit here and laugh at your reasoning.

Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 8:20:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi

There, a response from ORE-ELE:

A standarized document on debating standards: http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, your reasoning fails. People who are found "full of it" generally get many posts on their controversial forums. Much like in your Forum where Roy wiped the floor with you, or in the forums of InstallGentoo and STALIN.

Here is Roy burying you alive:

Roy says:

GWL-CPA is pointlessly stirring up controversy. I was mainly worried someone new on the site might take him seriously. The Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total wastThe Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total waste."

Hence, you have to learn logic as...

1- Being "full of it" gets you many posts... as you and your forums are a living proof of that.

2- I got responses from people with High Elo that encouraged such idea, one of them being Ore-Ele.

3- My forum discussion was not asking a question or bringing fourth a controversial matter, but was a technical document I used as a reference for my debates. If you are not impressed with my forum post count, you need to check my controversial topics on the Religion category, and not my technical documents which I only intend to use as a reference.

It's called Logic. Learn it.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 10:09:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 8:20:31 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi

There, a response from ORE-ELE:

A standarized document on debating standards: http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, your reasoning fails. People who are found "full of it" generally get many posts on their controversial forums. Much like in your Forum where Roy wiped the floor with you, or in the forums of InstallGentoo and STALIN.

Here is Roy burying you alive:

Roy says:

GWL-CPA is pointlessly stirring up controversy. I was mainly worried someone new on the site might take him seriously. The Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total wastThe Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total waste."

Hence, you have to learn logic as...

1- Being "full of it" gets you many posts... as you and your forums are a living proof of that.

2- I got responses from people with High Elo that encouraged such idea, one of them being Ore-Ele.

3- My forum discussion was not asking a question or bringing fourth a controversial matter, but was a technical document I used as a reference for my debates. If you are not impressed with my forum post count, you need to check my controversial topics on the Religion category, and not my technical documents which I only intend to use as a reference.

It's called Logic. Learn it.

Don't pay much attention to trolls like him, they are not worth the effort it takes to respond to them. He is always trying to start stuff in the forums, and is accepted/regarded on this site as one its most fallacious members. Anyone that goes that far out of their way to try and start drama, or just purposefully make idiotic posts is a detriment to the site and its rapport. He is in essence either a really toxic troll, or a very ignorant user. I really would just block him, or as I said do not even burn the calories it takes to type a sentence back to him.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:09:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 10:09:22 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:20:31 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi

There, a response from ORE-ELE:

A standarized document on debating standards: http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, your reasoning fails. People who are found "full of it" generally get many posts on their controversial forums. Much like in your Forum where Roy wiped the floor with you, or in the forums of InstallGentoo and STALIN.

Here is Roy burying you alive:

Roy says:

GWL-CPA is pointlessly stirring up controversy. I was mainly worried someone new on the site might take him seriously. The Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total wastThe Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total waste."

Hence, you have to learn logic as...

1- Being "full of it" gets you many posts... as you and your forums are a living proof of that.

2- I got responses from people with High Elo that encouraged such idea, one of them being Ore-Ele.

3- My forum discussion was not asking a question or bringing fourth a controversial matter, but was a technical document I used as a reference for my debates. If you are not impressed with my forum post count, you need to check my controversial topics on the Religion category, and not my technical documents which I only intend to use as a reference.

It's called Logic. Learn it.

Don't pay much attention to trolls like him, they are not worth the effort it takes to respond to them. He is always trying to start stuff in the forums, and is accepted/regarded on this site as one its most fallacious members. Anyone that goes that far out of their way to try and start drama, or just purposefully make idiotic posts is a detriment to the site and its rapport. He is in essence either a really toxic troll, or a very ignorant user. I really would just block him, or as I said do not even burn the calories it takes to type a sentence back to him.

I had no idea he had such a reputation here. I suppose I agree with you that he is either trolling or someone that needs professional help. I thought he was just doing this with me, and so I gave him more attention than warranted.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 3:56:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 10:09:22 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:20:31 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi

There, a response from ORE-ELE:

A standarized document on debating standards: http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, your reasoning fails. People who are found "full of it" generally get many posts on their controversial forums. Much like in your Forum where Roy wiped the floor with you, or in the forums of InstallGentoo and STALIN.

Here is Roy burying you alive:

Roy says:

GWL-CPA is pointlessly stirring up controversy. I was mainly worried someone new on the site might take him seriously. The Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total wastThe Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total waste."

Hence, you have to learn logic as...

1- Being "full of it" gets you many posts... as you and your forums are a living proof of that.

2- I got responses from people with High Elo that encouraged such idea, one of them being Ore-Ele.

3- My forum discussion was not asking a question or bringing fourth a controversial matter, but was a technical document I used as a reference for my debates. If you are not impressed with my forum post count, you need to check my controversial topics on the Religion category, and not my technical documents which I only intend to use as a reference.

It's called Logic. Learn it.

Don't pay much attention to trolls like him, they are not worth the effort it takes to respond to them. He is always trying to start stuff in the forums, and is accepted/regarded on this site as one its most fallacious members. Anyone that goes that far out of their way to try and start drama, or just purposefully make idiotic posts is a detriment to the site and its rapport. He is in essence either a really toxic troll, or a very ignorant user. I really would just block him, or as I said do not even burn the calories it takes to type a sentence back to him.

Who cares about what Roy states?
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 8:26:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 3:56:38 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/7/2014 10:09:22 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:20:31 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi

There, a response from ORE-ELE:

A standarized document on debating standards: http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, your reasoning fails. People who are found "full of it" generally get many posts on their controversial forums. Much like in your Forum where Roy wiped the floor with you, or in the forums of InstallGentoo and STALIN.

Here is Roy burying you alive:

Roy says:

GWL-CPA is pointlessly stirring up controversy. I was mainly worried someone new on the site might take him seriously. The Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total wastThe Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total waste."

Hence, you have to learn logic as...

1- Being "full of it" gets you many posts... as you and your forums are a living proof of that.

2- I got responses from people with High Elo that encouraged such idea, one of them being Ore-Ele.

3- My forum discussion was not asking a question or bringing fourth a controversial matter, but was a technical document I used as a reference for my debates. If you are not impressed with my forum post count, you need to check my controversial topics on the Religion category, and not my technical documents which I only intend to use as a reference.

It's called Logic. Learn it.

Don't pay much attention to trolls like him, they are not worth the effort it takes to respond to them. He is always trying to start stuff in the forums, and is accepted/regarded on this site as one its most fallacious members. Anyone that goes that far out of their way to try and start drama, or just purposefully make idiotic posts is a detriment to the site and its rapport. He is in essence either a really toxic troll, or a very ignorant user. I really would just block him, or as I said do not even burn the calories it takes to type a sentence back to him.

Who cares about what Roy states?
NiqashMotawadi3, - Part I

I am not sure you are actually quoting Roy because you have not listed the link or what post number or numbers you are quoting from.

I apologize to Roy, if he did not state what you are quoting.

In what forum did RoyLatham wipe me all over the floor in your and other people"s opinions?

RoyLatham has never buried me alive with his logic or his version of reality.

Roy"s opinion is no more valuable than mine or anyone else"s, despite what his ego tells him.

Roy calling me a troll is a huge satisfaction for me because it proves he does not know his Arse from a hole in the ground.

The number of trolls spiking debates at DDO is statistically insignificant and rarely happens. The only two true trolls I have seen at DDO are imabench and MassiveDump, IMHO. Many are accused of being Trolls, but are not. They are called trolls mainly because they disagree with the cliques at DDO. It is very laughable and silly.

There have been 29,972 debates as of 2:53 PM CST on 2-7-14; how many were potentially ruined by trolls?

And, if I am a smart troll, I can still accept the debate in round one, and spike it in Round two after Pro wastes lots of time posting his arguments and evidence in Round 2. So, Roy"s thinking is just wrong.

Is this part of what you are calling the "oral tradition" that trumps the facts/rules at DDO? Did you get that "oral tradition" nonsense from Roy?

If you want some assurance your debate is not going to be spiked by a troll, you make sure you set the right parameters per the debate options available per the "Start Debate" screen under the "Advanced Options" per the "Opponent" category, i.e., min and max age, min and max number of debates, and/or only members ranked as good as or better than me. Most true trolls don"t join DDO to have debates. So if you set the min. number of debates to at least 2 or higher, you will eliminate most trolls.

There have been 29,972 debates as of 2:53 PM CST on 2-7-14; how many were potentially ruined by trolls?
http://www.debate.org...

In how many of those 29,971 debates was the first round used for acceptance, stating pro"s rules and definitions? And, in how many of those debates did Pro waste time posting his arguments and evidence in round 2 to find out that a troll had spiked the debate in round 2 by forfeiting in round 2 wasting pro"s valuable time?

I will do another random sample of 1,000 debates and try to answer those questions.

The reason so many members were angry at my Forum "Confirmation Bias Cannot be Beaten!" is because it proves that most voters are not voting objectively because of confirmation bias. I also exposed how vote cheating goes on between friends who vote for their friends in return for their voting for those friends. I was also pointing out that the debate ranking were meaningless because of this type of voting and the confirmation bias. This pissed many people off.

The truth is always hard to swallow.

How many of those debates were won were voters showed no confirmation bias or in-group (friends) bias when they voted? I suspect that the number is very small.

The first two voting categories are "Who did you agree with before the debate?" and "Who did you agree with after the debate?" The only thing you know before the debate is the topic, e.g., marijuana is good for society, which is usually the resolution Pro is trying to prove. So if you agreed with Pro before the debate, you began with confirmation bias by definition, e.g., because your brain was already predisposed to marijuana being good for society. Most likely, no matter what arguments and evidence were presented by Con, you voted for Pro. You might have given a point to two to Con, but you ended up giving the most points to Pro. Of course this assumes that both debaters know how to debate, cite evidence, and are not rude.

Many voters know that by checking agreed with Pro or Con before the debate shows potential confirmation bias, so they are dishonest and check tied, IMHO.

If you check Pro for agreeing with after the debate, you most likely agreed with Pro before the debate, except in rare cases, where you had no opinion before the debate or were unsure of your pre-debate opinion.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 8:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 8:26:34 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/7/2014 3:56:38 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/7/2014 10:09:22 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:20:31 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Really, you did? Then where is that forum? It is a forum, why would you assume it is not for responses? You again don't know how this site works. You seem to be making things up as you go along. You live in your own little delusional world.

The only response I see is from Zaradi

There, a response from ORE-ELE:

A standarized document on debating standards: http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, your reasoning fails. People who are found "full of it" generally get many posts on their controversial forums. Much like in your Forum where Roy wiped the floor with you, or in the forums of InstallGentoo and STALIN.

Here is Roy burying you alive:

Roy says:

GWL-CPA is pointlessly stirring up controversy. I was mainly worried someone new on the site might take him seriously. The Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total wastThe Instigator is usually Pro, so Pro has to make a case either as part of the challenge or at the start of R2. Writing the case for the challenge can be a waste of time if no one accepts the debate, and it also incites trolls to spike the debate by clicking "accept" and then forfeiting the first round. The site kills the debate when that happens, so it's a total waste."

Hence, you have to learn logic as...

1- Being "full of it" gets you many posts... as you and your forums are a living proof of that.

2- I got responses from people with High Elo that encouraged such idea, one of them being Ore-Ele.

3- My forum discussion was not asking a question or bringing fourth a controversial matter, but was a technical document I used as a reference for my debates. If you are not impressed with my forum post count, you need to check my controversial topics on the Religion category, and not my technical documents which I only intend to use as a reference.

It's called Logic. Learn it.

Don't pay much attention to trolls like him, they are not worth the effort it takes to respond to them. He is always trying to start stuff in the forums, and is accepted/regarded on this site as one its most fallacious members. Anyone that goes that far out of their way to try and start drama, or just purposefully make idiotic posts is a detriment to the site and its rapport. He is in essence either a really toxic troll, or a very ignorant user. I really would just block him, or as I said do not even burn the calories it takes to type a sentence back to him.

Who cares about what Roy states?
NiqashMotawadi3, - Part II

Do some voters rise above confirmation bias sometimes, sure; but most voters at DDO do not. The amount of in-group or in-friend voting that goes on at DDO is amazing.

Some voters even hide their Friends List, which makes it more difficult to determine if friends are voting for friends. The problem with that is that usually all those friends that are not hiding their friends" lists will have the person who is hiding his friends" list on their list, i.e., the member who is hiding his friend"s list will appear on the voter"s friends list. So, usually you can figure out if friends are voting for friends.

Does that always mean that the voting was unfair? Of course not, but, if you dig deeper, you can see if the voters had a pre-debate opinion on the subject. For example, if the members are honest, IMHO, and complete the 48 questions in "The Big Issues" section of their profiles, and selects "Pro" Drug legalization, and that member votes for Pro who believes marijuana should be legal, then that is proof that his vote is based on confirmation bias. Or, sometimes the voters will have had a debate on that same subject and taken the pro position, e.g., Pot should be legal.

And, if confirmation bias is a subconscious process as proven by scientific studies done by psychologists, do you ever vote objectively?

"The myth or misconception is that your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis."

"The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions."

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."

http://scientificawakening.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Confirmation Bias...and the Wason Rule Discovery Test
Peter Cathcart Wason - Psychologist

"Peter Cathcart Wason was a cognitive psychologist, who worked on the psychology of reason. He made progress in explaining why people make certain consistent mistakes in logical reasoning." Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Many debaters and voters Cherry pick the evidence and arguments presented by only accepting those that agree with their positions and ignoring the evidence and arguments that disagree with their positions, evidence that actually proves they are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)

There were lots of people posting in anger to my post on confirmation bias that rejected the scientific studies I cited that prove that confirmation bias can"t be beaten in most cases. They wanted to believe that they won the debates because they had better arguments and evidence; most did not. All those people posting in angry are all in denial about confirmation bias; and that is why they started calling me names and trashing me.

My random survey of 1,000 debates to determine how many members vote on debates is just more proof that most debates at this site are worthless and prove nothing. I sure many reject those statistics too and are not honest enough to admit that I am right.

What is proven if only one or two people vote on a debate? Nothing!

They actually believe that winning a debate at DDO actually proves something; it does not because of confirmation bias and two few voters.

Again, the mode number of voters in 1,000 debates selected at random was 0, the median was 1, and the average was 2. So, if anyone thinks 1 or 2 voters are enough voters to prove anything, you are living in a reality unknown to me.

And, you are the one that is trolling me buddy; since I reported you as a vote bomb in the debate, "Morality is subjective."

From what you have stated about the CEO of Juggle, LLC and one of the respected administrators " Nate Simmons, you are the one that needs psychological help. You don"t even know those people and you are making rude remarks about them.

WOW!
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain