Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Most Insidious Kind of Vote Bomb

YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:38:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The most insidious kind of vote bomb is the one that's cast for personal reasons, but appears on the surface to be legitimate. It's the kind of vote bomb that most undermines the integrity of voting as a whole, and the one that yields the highest disservice to the community as a whole. It's at once the single most irresponsible vote that can be cast, in that it is a lie, and it it is a lie cast in malice against another.
Tsar of DDO
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:52:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:38:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The most insidious kind of vote bomb is the one that's cast for personal reasons, but appears on the surface to be legitimate. It's the kind of vote bomb that most undermines the integrity of voting as a whole, and the one that yields the highest disservice to the community as a whole. It's at once the single most irresponsible vote that can be cast, in that it is a lie, and it it is a lie cast in malice against another.

Booho. You're starting drama again because of my two-point justified vote for your opponent.

Next time read the rules carefully. When you accept a debate where you can't present rebuttals in the second round, you can't get away with statements such as:

'My opponent's second argument is that heavy metal is the best genre ever because it "opens a great way to express anger and vent." And for some people, it might. But for others, like old people or fundamentalist Christians, it might actually cause anger.'

This is a direct response and a rebuttal, no matter what you would like to call it.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:55:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is another rebuttal in a round YYW was not supposed to give any rebuttals in:

My opponent's final idea is that heavy metal "can often serve as a wake-up call" :meaning that it "warns us of how humans are destroying the world." In principle, my :opponent is measuring a specific heavy metal song's value by evaluating the quality and :depth of their sociocultural message -which I can appreciate. But, that doesn't mean that :heavy metal is the best genre ever because not all heavy metal songs have such a deep :or valuable meaning and even if they did, there are other songs from other genres which :serve as even more compelling harbingers of tragedy's onslaught.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:00:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:52:51 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 5:38:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The most insidious kind of vote bomb is the one that's cast for personal reasons, but appears on the surface to be legitimate. It's the kind of vote bomb that most undermines the integrity of voting as a whole, and the one that yields the highest disservice to the community as a whole. It's at once the single most irresponsible vote that can be cast, in that it is a lie, and it it is a lie cast in malice against another.

Booho. You're starting drama again because of my two-point justified vote for your opponent.

Next time read the rules carefully. When you accept a debate where you can't present rebuttals in the second round, you can't get away with statements such as:

'My opponent's second argument is that heavy metal is the best genre ever because it "opens a great way to express anger and vent." And for some people, it might. But for others, like old people or fundamentalist Christians, it might actually cause anger.'

This is a direct response and a rebuttal, no matter what you would like to call it.

You placed a bullsh!t vote on a debate, and you know it.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dear members of the forum:

I created this thread to see if Niquash cast a vote bomb that he knew was malicious and at my expense.

Notice that I did not call him out by name. That was by design. I knew that if he responded, his defense would indicate his guilt. An innocent voter would have looked the other way, and perhaps a guilty one might too... but only someone who was both guilty and sought vindication would make a response when it was out of context. He could have ignored this thread if he thought he wasn't guilty, but the fact that he did is sufficient to show that he knows his vote on my last debate was abusive.

I move, then, that we all are aware that Niquash is an abusive voter. He does so at the expense of this community and every other vote cast, and his malicious ballot deserves to be removed because of it. I further move that an investigation into Niquash's past voting commence, because if he has vote bombed me in this insidious way, I'm sure he's done it to others as well. We need to make an example of him. Ignoring this is consent for that kind of behavior to continue.
Tsar of DDO
Technition
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:11:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:00:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/5/2014 5:52:51 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 5:38:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The most insidious kind of vote bomb is the one that's cast for personal reasons, but appears on the surface to be legitimate. It's the kind of vote bomb that most undermines the integrity of voting as a whole, and the one that yields the highest disservice to the community as a whole. It's at once the single most irresponsible vote that can be cast, in that it is a lie, and it it is a lie cast in malice against another.

Booho. You're starting drama again because of my two-point justified vote for your opponent.
Is he targeting people? Perhaps...
To bad I can't have all caps...
Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:12:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:06:58 PM, YYW wrote:
Dear members of the forum:

I created this thread to see if Niquash cast a vote bomb that he knew was malicious and at my expense.

Notice that I did not call him out by name. That was by design. I knew that if he responded, his defense would indicate his guilt. An innocent voter would have looked the other way, and perhaps a guilty one might too... but only someone who was both guilty and sought vindication would make a response when it was out of context. He could have ignored this thread if he thought he wasn't guilty, but the fact that he did is sufficient to show that he knows his vote on my last debate was abusive.

I move, then, that we all are aware that Niquash is an abusive voter. He does so at the expense of this community and every other vote cast, and his malicious ballot deserves to be removed because of it. I further move that an investigation into Niquash's past voting commence, because if he has vote bombed me in this insidious way, I'm sure he's done it to others as well. We need to make an example of him. Ignoring this is consent for that kind of behavior to continue.

I have also suspected this type of voting from Niquash.

I only lend my opinion on this because I think this is the sort of behavior that can only be addressed via public censure.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:13:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
YYW is trying to start a flame war like he did with many members here(Rross, Wrichicriw and Bluesteel), I'm not really interested in this drama.

I gave a thorough RFD and outlined here how he offered rebuttals when was not supposed to do so according to the debate structure he himself accepted when he accepted the debate. My vote was simply two points, one for conduct, second for S&G because of YYW lack of interest in using a spell-checker.

I shall leave this as my final response, as I'm not interested in what YYW has to say because he is too distressed with a 2 points vote.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:17:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, and just one more thing, I deduced that this was against me because he left an insulting remark on the debate as a form of vote bullying minutes before he created this thread.

His argument from intentions is funny. "He knew I could be referring to him, therefore it must be him." Someone teach that kid logic.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:22:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:11:58 PM, Technition wrote:
At 4/5/2014 6:00:04 PM, YYW wrote:
Is he targeting people? Perhaps...

He absolutely is.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:28:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:13:29 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
YYW is trying to start a flame war like he did with many members here(Rross, Wrichicriw and Bluesteel), I'm not really interested in this drama.

I gave a thorough RFD and outlined here how he offered rebuttals when was not supposed to do so according to the debate structure he himself accepted when he accepted the debate. My vote was simply two points, one for conduct, second for S&G because of YYW lack of interest in using a spell-checker.

I shall leave this as my final response, as I'm not interested in what YYW has to say because he is too distressed with a 2 points vote.

Your RFD begins by accusing YYW of spamming his friends to get them to vote in his favor and praising pro for some reason.

Then you vote SG because supposedly YYW had "more" spelling mistakes and run on sentences. Did you keep tally of number of mistakes by each side? Pro also made some minor errors, but both sides did a good job of writing coherently. An SG vote on this debate was stupid.

You also didn't bother to vote on arguments cause you thought the debate was tied?
Technition
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He seems very interested even though he stated that he wasn't. Will that be his last post? Will he get into this more than he already has? Well see...
To bad I can't have all caps...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:35:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:28:58 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/5/2014 6:13:29 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
YYW is trying to start a flame war like he did with many members here(Rross, Wrichicriw and Bluesteel), I'm not really interested in this drama.

I gave a thorough RFD and outlined here how he offered rebuttals when was not supposed to do so according to the debate structure he himself accepted when he accepted the debate. My vote was simply two points, one for conduct, second for S&G because of YYW lack of interest in using a spell-checker.

I shall leave this as my final response, as I'm not interested in what YYW has to say because he is too distressed with a 2 points vote.

You obviously have not read my RFD, just skimmed over it.


Your RFD begins by accusing YYW of spamming his friends to get them to vote in his favor and praising pro for some reason.

Which is true.

Nevertheless, I never based my conduct point on that, but the fact that he broke the rules, which you didn't bring up. I gave two examples already of how he was not supposed to offer any rebuttals and ended up offering two rebuttals to his opponent's main arguments.


Then you vote SG because supposedly YYW had "more" spelling mistakes and run on sentences. Did you keep tally of number of mistakes by each side? Pro also made some minor errors, but both sides did a good job of writing coherently. An SG vote on this debate was stupid.

YYW mispelled band names in a debate about music, which made those errors more noticeable to me. His grammar was just awful and he used slang throughout the debate, which is simply a laughing matter.


You also didn't bother to vote on arguments cause you thought the debate was tied?

Not at all. This is a total misrepresentation. YYW didn't make any convincing arguments for his case in a debate where the burden of proof was shared as outlined by his opponent, and so I left the arguments tied as I didn't find any of the arguments presented convincing.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:36:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:31:07 PM, Technition wrote:
He seems very interested even though he stated that he wasn't. Will that be his last post? Will he get into this more than he already has? Well see...

Let me explicitly state that I just won't be responding to YYW or anyone in for a flame-war.
Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:35:14 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 6:28:58 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/5/2014 6:13:29 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
YYW is trying to start a flame war like he did with many members here(Rross, Wrichicriw and Bluesteel), I'm not really interested in this drama.

I gave a thorough RFD and outlined here how he offered rebuttals when was not supposed to do so according to the debate structure he himself accepted when he accepted the debate. My vote was simply two points, one for conduct, second for S&G because of YYW lack of interest in using a spell-checker.

I shall leave this as my final response, as I'm not interested in what YYW has to say because he is too distressed with a 2 points vote.

You obviously have not read my RFD, just skimmed over it.


Your RFD begins by accusing YYW of spamming his friends to get them to vote in his favor and praising pro for some reason.

Which is true.

Nevertheless, I never based my conduct point on that, but the fact that he broke the rules, which you didn't bring up. I gave two examples already of how he was not supposed to offer any rebuttals and ended up offering two rebuttals to his opponent's main arguments.


Then you vote SG because supposedly YYW had "more" spelling mistakes and run on sentences. Did you keep tally of number of mistakes by each side? Pro also made some minor errors, but both sides did a good job of writing coherently. An SG vote on this debate was stupid.

YYW mispelled band names in a debate about music, which made those errors more noticeable to me. His grammar was just awful and he used slang throughout the debate, which is simply a laughing matter.


You also didn't bother to vote on arguments cause you thought the debate was tied?

Not at all. This is a total misrepresentation. YYW didn't make any convincing arguments for his case in a debate where the burden of proof was shared as outlined by his opponent, and so I left the arguments tied as I didn't find any of the arguments presented convincing.

Your vote is automatically suspect when you start an RFD with lopsided accusations and praise, especially when it is followed with a very strange point distribution and justification that doesn't seem to bear strong relation to what was actually presented.

His opponent never outlined that bop was shared, YYWs whole case relied on pro having bop. You just asserted bop was shared in your rfd, ignoring arguments made in round, to justify your terrible ballot.

He misspelled a band name, his opponent misused "it's," the SG issues are minor. A vote for either side is at best arbitrary.

Your definition of rebuttal is clearly much stricter than most people. I think you are wrong on that point but I think this is a different issue on which you are a bad voter, and one that is more theoretical and less serious.
Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:47:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Moreover, you can obviously come up with justifications for your vote- otherwise it would clearly be a vote bomb.

You just seem to have a pattern of casting votes in response to personal issues from the forums.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:02:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your definition of rebuttal is clearly much stricter than most people. I think you are wrong on that point but I think this is a different issue on which you are a bad voter, and one that is more theoretical and less serious.

He addressed his opponent's points directly, quoted him and offered direct objections to sentences he said. How am I being strict about rebuttals again?

Do you want us to believe that this wasn't a rebuttal?

My opponent's final idea is that heavy metal "can often serve as a wake-up call" :meaning that it "warns us of how humans are destroying the world." In principle, my :opponent is measuring a specific heavy metal song's value by evaluating the quality and :depth of their sociocultural message -which I can appreciate. But, that doesn't mean that :heavy metal is the best genre ever because not all heavy metal songs have such a deep :or valuable meaning and even if they did, there are other songs from other genres which :serve as even more compelling harbingers of tragedy's onslaught.

You're turning this into an ad hom attack against me which I'm not interested in. If you can offer substantial claims, go ahead, I have no interest in hearing your baseless opinions about me or my votes, directly after I have voted against you in one of your least remarkable debates in which you violated the ToS and the New Moderation Policy by personally attacking your opponent. However, If you want to debate whether YYW broke the rules of the debate or not, I'm ready for that.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:02:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:38:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The most insidious kind of vote bomb is the one that's cast for personal reasons, but appears on the surface to be legitimate. It's the kind of vote bomb that most undermines the integrity of voting as a whole, and the one that yields the highest disservice to the community as a whole. It's at once the single most irresponsible vote that can be cast, in that it is a lie, and it it is a lie cast in malice against another.

I do that all the time. Usually I just flip a coin to decide who I vote for.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:47:40 PM, Raisor wrote:

You just seem to have a pattern of casting votes in response to personal issues from the forums.

This.

Niqash cast bad enough votes against Mikal during their flame war that it got him some serious rebukes from a moderator. And then he harassed me for attempting to counter his vote bomb on one of Mikal's rap debate.

He hasn't vote bombed against me.... yet. But that's likely only because my past 8 debates were blowouts or forfeits (during my silly bestiality/pedophilia debate phase). There's no way he could have voted against me without vote bombing. I fully expect that when I return to debating this summer I will receive some retaliatory votes from Niqash. YYW, myself, and Mikal seem to be his top targets, although I am sure there are others that deserve that distinction as well.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:11:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:47:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
Moreover, you can obviously come up with justifications for your vote- otherwise it would clearly be a vote bomb.

You just seem to have a pattern of casting votes in response to personal issues from the forums.

Lol. I recommend a book called "Believing Bullsh!t" by Stephen Law which shows how you're connecting dots and drawing patterns simply to suit your confirmation bias.

I have voted in favor of Muslims I didn't like, and people here who I had verbal fights with. For instance, I had a rather odd encounter with Rross who defeated me in our first debate, and reacted aggressively towards me after our second, but I voted for her in her debate with BSH1 weeks after, because she raised good objections. The examples are numerous, but I'm not really interested in defending myself anymore.

When you put truth on the defensive, the lies you and YYW propagate are given higher audacity than they deserve, IMHO.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:17:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It really all comes down to this...

1- A DDO parasite (someone with High ELO but who wins debates by noob-sniping and unethical methods), engages in a debate and asks his friends to vote.

2- His friends come and vote for him with absurd RFDs after he publicly and privately asks them.

3- Niqash reads the debate and has a very different opinion and is shocked by the absurd RFDs which are the offspring of in-friend voting biases.

4- Niqash swims against the current and votes (sometimes just awarding 2 points) to get a backlash from the DDO parasite and his friends.

Story of my life which explains all the opinions here from Mikal's friends and YYW's buddies.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:45:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 7:17:14 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It really all comes down to this...

1- A DDO parasite (someone with High ELO but who wins debates by noob-sniping and unethical methods), engages in a debate and asks his friends to vote.

2- His friends come and vote for him with absurd RFDs after he publicly and privately asks them.

3- Niqash reads the debate and has a very different opinion and is shocked by the absurd RFDs which are the offspring of in-friend voting biases.

4- Niqash swims against the current and votes (sometimes just awarding 2 points) to get a backlash from the DDO parasite and his friends.

Story of my life which explains all the opinions here from Mikal's friends and YYW's buddies.

We caught you, Niquash. We see you for what you are, and the forum has formed a consensus. The way you cast ballots is disgraceful, and it is a sad reflection on your character. You can pretend like you're not a malevolent vote bomber, but that fiction isn't going to change reality.
Tsar of DDO
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:58:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
After NiqashMotawadi3's vote, I decided to take a look at YYW's debate rounds 2 and 3. Here's what I found.

In 1880 words, YYW:
> misspelled one word: "reestablish" (should be spelled with a hyphen: re-establish)
> incorrectly repeated one word: "his his"
> incorrectly used "genre's" when he should have used the plural form of genre: genres
> mispelled one band name: "Distrubed"

In 787 words, CrazyCowMan:
> incorrectly confused "then" and "than": "everyone less fortunate then them"
> incorrectly used of instead of have: "might of"
> incorrectly used it's instead of its: "emphasizes it's meaning"

It took some nit-picking to locate some of these errors; the only vaguely significant error made was YYW's misspelling of "Disturbed," but even this was minor and easily understood.

NiqashMotawadi3 takes issue with:

1) the number of spelling errors and and run-on sentences.

Microsoft Word's spell checker found no run-on sentences in YYW's rounds. Some of the grammar errors it did identify which I didn't include above were the use of a comma rather than a semicolon in one occasion, and a few phrasing issues and fragments which were grammatically justifiable. Neither debater makes many spelling mistakes; this justification seems to be contrived.

2) the misspelling of "Distrubed"

While accurate, how Niqash gets from an innocent spelling error to "[being unfamiliar] with the debate altogether" is beyond me.

3) the use of informal language and slang

In the framing of the debate, Pro establishes that "this doesn't have to be a very serious debate," so formal language shouldn't be used to judge spelling and grammar.

***

NiqashMotawadi3's justification for giving grammar points to Pro is an example of rationalised voting; the grammar points are not justified.

I do think the conduct point is defensible, however.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 8:07:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 7:58:31 PM, Enji wrote:
After NiqashMotawadi3's vote, I decided to take a look at YYW's debate rounds 2 and 3. Here's what I found.

In 1880 words, YYW:
> misspelled one word: "reestablish" (should be spelled with a hyphen: re-establish)

reestablish is not an incorrect spelling.

> incorrectly repeated one word: "his his"
> incorrectly used "genre's" when he should have used the plural form of genre: genres
> mispelled one band name: "Distrubed"

In 787 words, CrazyCowMan:
> incorrectly confused "then" and "than": "everyone less fortunate then them"
> incorrectly used of instead of have: "might of"
> incorrectly used it's instead of its: "emphasizes it's meaning"

It took some nit-picking to locate some of these errors; the only vaguely significant error made was YYW's misspelling of "Disturbed," but even this was minor and easily understood.

NiqashMotawadi3 takes issue with:

1) the number of spelling errors and and run-on sentences.

Microsoft Word's spell checker found no run-on sentences in YYW's rounds. Some of the grammar errors it did identify which I didn't include above were the use of a comma rather than a semicolon in one occasion, and a few phrasing issues and fragments which were grammatically justifiable. Neither debater makes many spelling mistakes; this justification seems to be contrived.

2) the misspelling of "Distrubed"

While accurate, how Niqash gets from an innocent spelling error to "[being unfamiliar] with the debate altogether" is beyond me.

3) the use of informal language and slang

In the framing of the debate, Pro establishes that "this doesn't have to be a very serious debate," so formal language shouldn't be used to judge spelling and grammar.

***

NiqashMotawadi3's justification for giving grammar points to Pro is an example of rationalised voting; the grammar points are not justified.

I do think the conduct point is defensible, however.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 8:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 7:11:51 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 6:47:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
Moreover, you can obviously come up with justifications for your vote- otherwise it would clearly be a vote bomb.

You just seem to have a pattern of casting votes in response to personal issues from the forums.

Lol. I recommend a book called "Believing Bullsh!t" by Stephen Law which shows how you're connecting dots and drawing patterns simply to suit your confirmation bias.

I have voted in favor of Muslims I didn't like, and people here who I had verbal fights with. For instance, I had a rather odd encounter with Rross who defeated me in our first debate, and reacted aggressively towards me after our second, but I voted for her in her debate with BSH1 weeks after, because she raised good objections. The examples are numerous, but I'm not really interested in defending myself anymore.

When you put truth on the defensive, the lies you and YYW propagate are given higher audacity than they deserve, IMHO.

That is bullsh!t, Niquash. You're one of the worst voters on this site, and you use ballots to elicit revenge for forum vendettas. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that that's the case and its disgraceful, but not surprising. You have this idea that somehow all of us are wrong and only you are right, despite the profundity of evidence that serves as nothing less than an indictment against you. It is shameful and disgusting, and your voting privileges should be suspended indefinitely.
Tsar of DDO
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 8:17:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 8:07:03 PM, YYW wrote:

reestablish is not an incorrect spelling.

You're right; the spelling with the hyphen is the preferred spelling in British English and the spelling without the hyphen appears to be increasing in popularity. My bad!
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 8:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 7:58:31 PM, Enji wrote:
After NiqashMotawadi3's vote, I decided to take a look at YYW's debate rounds 2 and 3. Here's what I found.

In 1880 words, YYW:
> misspelled one word: "reestablish" (should be spelled with a hyphen: re-establish)
> incorrectly repeated one word: "his his"
> incorrectly used "genre's" when he should have used the plural form of genre: genres
> mispelled one band name: "Distrubed"

In 787 words, CrazyCowMan:
> incorrectly confused "then" and "than": "everyone less fortunate then them"
> incorrectly used of instead of have: "might of"
> incorrectly used it's instead of its: "emphasizes it's meaning"

It took some nit-picking to locate some of these errors; the only vaguely significant error made was YYW's misspelling of "Disturbed," but even this was minor and easily understood.

NiqashMotawadi3 takes issue with:

1) the number of spelling errors and and run-on sentences.

Microsoft Word's spell checker found no run-on sentences in YYW's rounds. Some of the grammar errors it did identify which I didn't include above were the use of a comma rather than a semicolon in one occasion, and a few phrasing issues and fragments which were grammatically justifiable. Neither debater makes many spelling mistakes; this justification seems to be contrived.

2) the misspelling of "Distrubed"

While accurate, how Niqash gets from an innocent spelling error to "[being unfamiliar] with the debate altogether" is beyond me.

3) the use of informal language and slang

In the framing of the debate, Pro establishes that "this doesn't have to be a very serious debate," so formal language shouldn't be used to judge spelling and grammar.

***

NiqashMotawadi3's justification for giving grammar points to Pro is an example of rationalised voting; the grammar points are not justified.


Thanks for your study,

I didn't notice two of the mistakes CrazyCowMan made, so I'm going to update my vote and leave the S&G tied. It's unfair to give the point of the S&G if YYW just had one more mistake than his opponent, but you seem to have used MS word's grammar-check which I doubt is that reliable. Anyhow, since that is a controversial point, I rather leave it tied.

I do think the conduct point is defensible, however.

Not just defensible, very defensible. He doesn't deserve the conduct point for violating the original rules of the debate. And so far, not even his friends (Raisor included) were able to provide any reasonable defense for his conduct in that debate which was just disappointing and shameful.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 9:13:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:35:14 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

Not at all. This is a total misrepresentation. YYW didn't make any convincing arguments for his case in a debate where the burden of proof was shared as outlined by his opponent, and so I left the arguments tied as I didn't find any of the arguments presented convincing.

Where, exactly, was this shared BoP outlined? It wasn't in R1, where it would have had to be accepted pre-debate. It wasn't in R2 or R3, either--the only mention of BoP was from Con, who said " He's making the claim, therefore he's got the BOP"--and as far as I can see, that was never contested.

I would say I can understand the conduct point--I was on the fence about it, myself, though I felt that, by a strict reading, Pro also brought up a new argument in R3 (saying he didn't doesn't make it not a new argument, he completely conceded his original point about meaningfulness and switched to talking about style). I didn't think it warranted conduct, but I could understand someone who believed it did.

However, I note that you've adjusted your S&G point when it was shown to you that it was unwarranted. And I question this point regarding shared BoP that, it seems to me, you may have manufactured out of thin air? I could be wrong, of course, so I'd appreciate it if you could point out where the BoP was indicated to be shared. If it's not actually in the debate, then it rather seems like you are voting your bias.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!