Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this debate a personal attack cont.

Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

I'm making a new forum topic, as the other one is already flooded in different converations, and was derailed. I only made this for discussion, like Wrcriw.

Now, many people defended Mikal's right to make this debate, but what people didn't know, is that he has made "Jifpop09 should be banned" debates several times. Everyone, I had the mod delete it. On one of those debates, I was threatened that every time I don't accept the debate, he would link an illicit picture of me.

So, the mod did delete all of these, but they still kept being made. My resolution is, that Mikal knew very well what he was doing, and that I did not like it. The fact that I was banned does not change this premise.

I also have to back up wrcriw. Bladerunner and Airmax reasoned that the debate was about Airmax's actions, and not mine. This is fallacious. The debate had me in the title...

"Airmax was just for banning Jifpop09"

Yes, this debate could of went on 100% without mentioning me. Even if it did, the fact that several arguments were made on my conduct by Mikal, inadvertently forces this to be an attack debate. Whether this was his intention, which it may or may not of been, the result is the same.

Citrayakah had a similar debate with Khaos before. Khao's, argued that GOP gerrymandering and weed criminalization was not intended to hurt minorities. Citrayakah argued this....

The result = the intention

I think this holds true. Even if you argue against this, can we at least agree that Mikal could of taken steps to lessen the result, if it were not his intention?

That's the point I was trying to make. Mikal, who was called into question by several users for attacking me, took no steps to fix this. He continued to use attacks on my conduct as the crux of his arguments.

Therefore, Mikal's unwillingness to shift course, proves that attacking me was his intention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .

My problem with this is, if the other side takes the time to write 6000 character RFD's, then why is it ok for the people who vote for Mikal to write 400 character one's. I don't think that's just, and if allowed, should be changed.

Maybe they really feel that Mikal deserved the points. That's ok, just say why in a RFD. The premise of nearly every vote was....

"Con failed to convince me"

I thought this was unfair, as pro had taken the bop. This forum has bought up two resolutions which I firmly stand with.....

1. If a debate centers around a person, they should be asked if its alright

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

I also call for a vote rating system, like Edeb8 has. This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also heard several accusations that I was the one who debated Mikal. This is not so, but I will keep the debaters name a secret
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please discuss....
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I'm making a new forum topic, as the other one is already flooded in different converations, and was derailed. I only made this for discussion, like Wrcriw.

Now, many people defended Mikal's right to make this debate, but what people didn't know, is that he has made "Jifpop09 should be banned" debates several times. Everyone, I had the mod delete it. On one of those debates, I was threatened that every time I don't accept the debate, he would link an illicit picture of me.

So, the mod did delete all of these, but they still kept being made. My resolution is, that Mikal knew very well what he was doing, and that I did not like it. The fact that I was banned does not change this premise.

I also have to back up wrcriw. Bladerunner and Airmax reasoned that the debate was about Airmax's actions, and not mine. This is fallacious. The debate had me in the title...

"Airmax was just for banning Jifpop09"

Yes, this debate could of went on 100% without mentioning me. Even if it did, the fact that several arguments were made on my conduct by Mikal, inadvertently forces this to be an attack debate. Whether this was his intention, which it may or may not of been, the result is the same.

Citrayakah had a similar debate with Khaos before. Khao's, argued that GOP gerrymandering and weed criminalization was not intended to hurt minorities. Citrayakah argued this....

The result = the intention

I think this holds true. Even if you argue against this, can we at least agree that Mikal could of taken steps to lessen the result, if it were not his intention?

That's the point I was trying to make. Mikal, who was called into question by several users for attacking me, took no steps to fix this. He continued to use attacks on my conduct as the crux of his arguments.

Therefore, Mikal's unwillingness to shift course, proves that attacking me was his intention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .

My problem with this is, if the other side takes the time to write 6000 character RFD's, then why is it ok for the people who vote for Mikal to write 400 character one's. I don't think that's just, and if allowed, should be changed.

Maybe they really feel that Mikal deserved the points. That's ok, just say why in a RFD. The premise of nearly every vote was....

"Con failed to convince me"

I thought this was unfair, as pro had taken the bop. This forum has bought up two resolutions which I firmly stand with.....

1. If a debate centers around a person, they should be asked if its alright

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

I also call for a vote rating system, like Edeb8 has. This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also heard several accusations that I was the one who debated Mikal. This is not so, but I will keep the debaters name a secret
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please discuss....

Are you asking that the mods delete the debate?!?
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I'm making a new forum topic, as the other one is already flooded in different converations, and was derailed. I only made this for discussion, like Wrcriw.

Now, many people defended Mikal's right to make this debate, but what people didn't know, is that he has made "Jifpop09 should be banned" debates several times. Everyone, I had the mod delete it. On one of those debates, I was threatened that every time I don't accept the debate, he would link an illicit picture of me.

So, the mod did delete all of these, but they still kept being made. My resolution is, that Mikal knew very well what he was doing, and that I did not like it. The fact that I was banned does not change this premise.

I also have to back up wrcriw. Bladerunner and Airmax reasoned that the debate was about Airmax's actions, and not mine. This is fallacious. The debate had me in the title...

"Airmax was just for banning Jifpop09"

Yes, this debate could of went on 100% without mentioning me. Even if it did, the fact that several arguments were made on my conduct by Mikal, inadvertently forces this to be an attack debate. Whether this was his intention, which it may or may not of been, the result is the same.

Citrayakah had a similar debate with Khaos before. Khao's, argued that GOP gerrymandering and weed criminalization was not intended to hurt minorities. Citrayakah argued this....

The result = the intention

I think this holds true. Even if you argue against this, can we at least agree that Mikal could of taken steps to lessen the result, if it were not his intention?

That's the point I was trying to make. Mikal, who was called into question by several users for attacking me, took no steps to fix this. He continued to use attacks on my conduct as the crux of his arguments.

Therefore, Mikal's unwillingness to shift course, proves that attacking me was his intention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .

My problem with this is, if the other side takes the time to write 6000 character RFD's, then why is it ok for the people who vote for Mikal to write 400 character one's. I don't think that's just, and if allowed, should be changed.

Maybe they really feel that Mikal deserved the points. That's ok, just say why in a RFD. The premise of nearly every vote was....

"Con failed to convince me"

I thought this was unfair, as pro had taken the bop. This forum has bought up two resolutions which I firmly stand with.....

1. If a debate centers around a person, they should be asked if its alright

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

I also call for a vote rating system, like Edeb8 has. This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also heard several accusations that I was the one who debated Mikal. This is not so, but I will keep the debaters name a secret
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please discuss....

Are you asking that the mods delete the debate?!?

No. I would of when it was first created, but you did a good job defending your case, without making it an attack debate. I'm uncomfortable with debates about me and my conduct.

I really should of been consulted by Mikal beforehand.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:49:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

That seems a little tedious. Why not just talk about the most significant arguments?

This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.

I'm afraid asking people to write longer RFD's would discourage voting, and we already have a problem with people not voting.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:55:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:49:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

That seems a little tedious. Why not just talk about the most significant arguments?

There are arguments on both sides. I would argue that its the content of said vote, but moderators can not always specify if the criteria in the vote is logical. I doubt mods read the debates, right?

That's why a voter rating system modeled after Edeb8 should be implemented. It allows the mods to know if they should seriously consider deleting a vote.

This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.

I'm afraid asking people to write longer RFD's would discourage voting, and we already have a problem with people not voting.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:58:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

You said in the comment section of the debate that there were only a few votes that you found justified in favor of Mikal, one of which was Bsh's, and I believe the other was Smithereens. You mentioned my name in the forum after the fact, which is great, but that doesn't negate what you previously said unless you'd like to admit that you misspoke, which happens to everyone and isn't something I would hold against you. Actually, I wouldn't hold any of this against you because I think this whole thing is silly, but I digress.

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Again, that wasn't skimming and accusing. But, sure, some of the votes on both sides were quite short. I personally don't see that as necessarily unacceptable, but I digress.

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Correct, and I argued that he has done that.

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

Which contentions?

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases

This is obviously a very general statement. If you were to mention a particular voter and what you think was missing from their RFD -- and airmax should clarify as to whether that is a personal attack, so don't take my word for it -- I think that would be considered an attack on their arguments, not on them. So, I can't really respond to this unless I have the proper context, but I'm not inclined to think that Mikal's votes were in any way suspicious -- obviously mine isn't.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:06:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:58:45 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

You said in the comment section of the debate that there were only a few votes that you found justified in favor of Mikal, one of which was Bsh's, and I believe the other was Smithereens. You mentioned my name in the forum after the fact, which is great, but that doesn't negate what you previously said unless you'd like to admit that you misspoke, which happens to everyone and isn't something I would hold against you. Actually, I wouldn't hold any of this against you because I think this whole thing is silly, but I digress.

Before that comment, I did acknowledge your vote as acceptable. Even through PM. It is reasonable for you to assume me forgetting to write your name, that I omitted you from being a good voter, in the opinion of myself.

Your vote is the best on that forum, and while we are not in agreement over it, you put time and effort into justifying your case. Once again, kudos!

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Again, that wasn't skimming and accusing. But, sure, some of the votes on both sides were quite short. I personally don't see that as necessarily unacceptable, but I digress.

Fair enough

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Correct, and I argued that he has done that.

Fair enough

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

Which contentions?

- Ore_Ele and not Airmax. All we got was his word
- A trial. Pretty much went dropped
- Completely dropped the "TOS is not always just one". He had to touch this one to fulfill the BOP, and he did not.

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases

This is obviously a very general statement. If you were to mention a particular voter and what you think was missing from their RFD -- and airmax should clarify as to whether that is a personal attack, so don't take my word for it -- I think that would be considered an attack on their arguments, not on them. So, I can't really respond to this unless I have the proper context, but I'm not inclined to think that Mikal's votes were in any way suspicious -- obviously mine isn't.

We must agree to disagree. Basic skimming of YYW and Jonbonbon votes showed that the reasoning relied on Mikal making better arguments. Do you feel those were good votes?

As I said, I only reported three votes as having "lack of RFD's". Others were just less than ideal, IMO, but not worthy of a report.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I'm making a new forum topic, as the other one is already flooded in different converations, and was derailed. I only made this for discussion, like Wrcriw.

Now, many people defended Mikal's right to make this debate, but what people didn't know, is that he has made "Jifpop09 should be banned" debates several times. Everyone, I had the mod delete it. On one of those debates, I was threatened that every time I don't accept the debate, he would link an illicit picture of me.

So, the mod did delete all of these, but they still kept being made. My resolution is, that Mikal knew very well what he was doing, and that I did not like it. The fact that I was banned does not change this premise.

I also have to back up wrcriw. Bladerunner and Airmax reasoned that the debate was about Airmax's actions, and not mine. This is fallacious. The debate had me in the title...

"Airmax was just for banning Jifpop09"

Yes, this debate could of went on 100% without mentioning me. Even if it did, the fact that several arguments were made on my conduct by Mikal, inadvertently forces this to be an attack debate. Whether this was his intention, which it may or may not of been, the result is the same.

Citrayakah had a similar debate with Khaos before. Khao's, argued that GOP gerrymandering and weed criminalization was not intended to hurt minorities. Citrayakah argued this....

The result = the intention

I think this holds true. Even if you argue against this, can we at least agree that Mikal could of taken steps to lessen the result, if it were not his intention?

That's the point I was trying to make. Mikal, who was called into question by several users for attacking me, took no steps to fix this. He continued to use attacks on my conduct as the crux of his arguments.

Therefore, Mikal's unwillingness to shift course, proves that attacking me was his intention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .

My problem with this is, if the other side takes the time to write 6000 character RFD's, then why is it ok for the people who vote for Mikal to write 400 character one's. I don't think that's just, and if allowed, should be changed.

Maybe they really feel that Mikal deserved the points. That's ok, just say why in a RFD. The premise of nearly every vote was....

"Con failed to convince me"

I thought this was unfair, as pro had taken the bop. This forum has bought up two resolutions which I firmly stand with.....

1. If a debate centers around a person, they should be asked if its alright

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

I also call for a vote rating system, like Edeb8 has. This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also heard several accusations that I was the one who debated Mikal. This is not so, but I will keep the debaters name a secret
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please discuss....

Are you asking that the mods delete the debate?!?

No. I would of when it was first created, but you did a good job defending your case, without making it an attack debate. I'm uncomfortable with debates about me and my conduct.

I really should have been consulted by Mikal beforehand.

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:10:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*

Irrelavant. It simply shows he shouldn't have. EX:

Your sister is out of town, but she left her car. You can't reach her, as her phones dead. You want to borrow her car. Do I have justification to take it without asking?

Your premise is broken. You resolution is negated
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:14:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:10:24 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*

Irrelavant. It simply shows he shouldn't have. EX:

Your sister is out of town, but she left her car. You can't reach her, as her phones dead. You want to borrow her car. Do I have justification to take it without asking?

Your premise is broken. You resolution is negated

Flaws in your analogy, just saying:
What if it is an emergency? If she is my sister, she'd let me borrow her car.

AND technically.... She would have had to leave her car in someone's possession...
So, I don't know if you do this, but in my family, when we are out of town, we'd lend the car to someone in the family we trust, for e.g. My cousin, to get around easily.

===

I see your point though, trolling aside. I was just wondering if you guys had another way of contacting each other for him to ask permission..
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:15:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:06:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:58:45 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

You said in the comment section of the debate that there were only a few votes that you found justified in favor of Mikal, one of which was Bsh's, and I believe the other was Smithereens. You mentioned my name in the forum after the fact, which is great, but that doesn't negate what you previously said unless you'd like to admit that you misspoke, which happens to everyone and isn't something I would hold against you. Actually, I wouldn't hold any of this against you because I think this whole thing is silly, but I digress.

Before that comment, I did acknowledge your vote as acceptable. Even through PM. It is reasonable for you to assume me forgetting to write your name, that I omitted you from being a good voter, in the opinion of myself.

Your vote is the best on that forum, and while we are not in agreement over it, you put time and effort into justifying your case. Once again, kudos!

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Again, that wasn't skimming and accusing. But, sure, some of the votes on both sides were quite short. I personally don't see that as necessarily unacceptable, but I digress.

Fair enough

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Correct, and I argued that he has done that.

Fair enough

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

Which contentions?

- Ore_Ele and not Airmax. All we got was his word
- A trial. Pretty much went dropped
- Completely dropped the "TOS is not always just one". He had to touch this one to fulfill the BOP, and he did not.

He addressed the first by pointing out that it was a consensus between airmax, Ore, and TUF.

He pointed out that the trials are pretty rare, and honestly, I think that was outside the parameters of the debate, anyway, since they were debating ad hoc as to whether airmax was justified. Saying that airmax could have done (x) when he was conceivably justified to do (y), which was Mikal's argument, doesn't mean that he wasn't justified in doing (y).

I'm not sure what you mean by the third one. I didn't see that in the debate, actually, so I'd appreciate if you could fill me in.

The point is, it was a mistake for him to take the BOP, I honestly believe, but I don't think it was fatal given the way he argued.

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases

This is obviously a very general statement. If you were to mention a particular voter and what you think was missing from their RFD -- and airmax should clarify as to whether that is a personal attack, so don't take my word for it -- I think that would be considered an attack on their arguments, not on them. So, I can't really respond to this unless I have the proper context, but I'm not inclined to think that Mikal's votes were in any way suspicious -- obviously mine isn't.

We must agree to disagree. Basic skimming of YYW and Jonbonbon votes showed that the reasoning relied on Mikal making better arguments. Do you feel those were good votes?

I haven't read them, but I honestly have no reason to question the integrity of either of them or to think that they would issue an unfair or controversial vote. So I'd advise you to take that up with both of them.

As I said, I only reported three votes as having "lack of RFD's". Others were just less than ideal, IMO, but not worthy of a report.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:19:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:14:19 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:10:24 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*

Irrelavant. It simply shows he shouldn't have. EX:

Your sister is out of town, but she left her car. You can't reach her, as her phones dead. You want to borrow her car. Do I have justification to take it without asking?

Your premise is broken. You resolution is negated

Flaws in your analogy, just saying:
What if it is an emergency? If she is my sister, she'd let me borrow her car.

AND technically.... She would have had to leave her car in someone's possession...
So, I don't know if you do this, but in my family, when we are out of town, we'd lend the car to someone in the family we trust, for e.g. My cousin, to get around easily.

===

I see your point though, trolling aside. I was just wondering if you guys had another way of contacting each other for him to ask permission..

Don't beat around the bush. My premise remains the same. You can't assume that what the other person would not mind your actions. This is fallacious logic on your part.

Ex: Your wife is in a coma, and she may or may not come out of it. She has a priceless vase that she adores and loves, and told people to not touch it. Is it ok for the husband to sell it?

Mikal knew in advance I was opposed to debates on my conduct. A lack of my response does not signal that I agree. IE:

Just because I didn't say no, does not mean I say yes
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:24:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:15:05 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:06:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:58:45 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

You said in the comment section of the debate that there were only a few votes that you found justified in favor of Mikal, one of which was Bsh's, and I believe the other was Smithereens. You mentioned my name in the forum after the fact, which is great, but that doesn't negate what you previously said unless you'd like to admit that you misspoke, which happens to everyone and isn't something I would hold against you. Actually, I wouldn't hold any of this against you because I think this whole thing is silly, but I digress.

Before that comment, I did acknowledge your vote as acceptable. Even through PM. It is reasonable for you to assume me forgetting to write your name, that I omitted you from being a good voter, in the opinion of myself.

Your vote is the best on that forum, and while we are not in agreement over it, you put time and effort into justifying your case. Once again, kudos!

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Again, that wasn't skimming and accusing. But, sure, some of the votes on both sides were quite short. I personally don't see that as necessarily unacceptable, but I digress.

Fair enough

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Correct, and I argued that he has done that.

Fair enough

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

Which contentions?

- Ore_Ele and not Airmax. All we got was his word
- A trial. Pretty much went dropped
- Completely dropped the "TOS is not always just one". He had to touch this one to fulfill the BOP, and he did not.

He addressed the first by pointing out that it was a consensus between airmax, Ore, and TUF.

No he said they mutually consulted, and made us rely on his word. If I was the one debating him, I would of immediately pointed this out as false. Airmax told me I had an hour to defend myself. Ore_Ele and TUF were both offline, so consultation was impossible.

BTW, his word is not proof. Therefore, at most, it is only capable of offsetting mine.

He pointed out that the trials are pretty rare, and honestly, I think that was outside the parameters of the debate, anyway, since they were debating ad hoc as to whether airmax was justified. Saying that airmax could have done (x) when he was conceivably justified to do (y), which was Mikal's argument, doesn't mean that he wasn't justified in doing (y).

Irrelevant. The point did get more or less dropped. He did address it, but Con pushed it hard, and many of the premises in that contention were dropped.

I'm not sure what you mean by the third one. I didn't see that in the debate, actually, so I'd appreciate if you could fill me in.

Honestly? That was the crux of 75% of his arguments. Mentioned in every vote. Con spent almost all of his final round pushing that rules that Juggle makes are not always just. He completely dropped that. This killed his entire case

The point is, it was a mistake for him to take the BOP, I honestly believe, but I don't think it was fatal given the way he argued.

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases

This is obviously a very general statement. If you were to mention a particular voter and what you think was missing from their RFD -- and airmax should clarify as to whether that is a personal attack, so don't take my word for it -- I think that would be considered an attack on their arguments, not on them. So, I can't really respond to this unless I have the proper context, but I'm not inclined to think that Mikal's votes were in any way suspicious -- obviously mine isn't.

We must agree to disagree. Basic skimming of YYW and Jonbonbon votes showed that the reasoning relied on Mikal making better arguments. Do you feel those were good votes?

I haven't read them, but I honestly have no reason to question the integrity of either of them or to think that they would issue an unfair or controversial vote. So I'd advise you to take that up with both of them.

As I said, I only reported three votes as having "lack of RFD's". Others were just less than ideal, IMO, but not worthy of a report.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:35:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:24:42 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:15:05 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:06:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:58:45 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

You said in the comment section of the debate that there were only a few votes that you found justified in favor of Mikal, one of which was Bsh's, and I believe the other was Smithereens. You mentioned my name in the forum after the fact, which is great, but that doesn't negate what you previously said unless you'd like to admit that you misspoke, which happens to everyone and isn't something I would hold against you. Actually, I wouldn't hold any of this against you because I think this whole thing is silly, but I digress.

Before that comment, I did acknowledge your vote as acceptable. Even through PM. It is reasonable for you to assume me forgetting to write your name, that I omitted you from being a good voter, in the opinion of myself.

Your vote is the best on that forum, and while we are not in agreement over it, you put time and effort into justifying your case. Once again, kudos!

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Again, that wasn't skimming and accusing. But, sure, some of the votes on both sides were quite short. I personally don't see that as necessarily unacceptable, but I digress.

Fair enough

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Correct, and I argued that he has done that.

Fair enough

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

Which contentions?

- Ore_Ele and not Airmax. All we got was his word
- A trial. Pretty much went dropped
- Completely dropped the "TOS is not always just one". He had to touch this one to fulfill the BOP, and he did not.

He addressed the first by pointing out that it was a consensus between airmax, Ore, and TUF.

No he said they mutually consulted, and made us rely on his word. If I was the one debating him, I would of immediately pointed this out as false. Airmax told me I had an hour to defend myself. Ore_Ele and TUF were both offline, so consultation was impossible.

Sure, but the initial claim relied on your word that airmax has a grudge against you which also couldn't be verified, so the argument is a wash.

BTW, his word is not proof. Therefore, at most, it is only capable of offsetting mine.

I disagree. That was the entire crux of my point: challenging airmax, Ore and TUF and whomever else was involved warrants a completely separate burden of proof. Challenging them based on an assertion isn't enough.

But I see what you're getting at with offsetting.

He pointed out that the trials are pretty rare, and honestly, I think that was outside the parameters of the debate, anyway, since they were debating ad hoc as to whether airmax was justified. Saying that airmax could have done (x) when he was conceivably justified to do (y), which was Mikal's argument, doesn't mean that he wasn't justified in doing (y).

Irrelevant. The point did get more or less dropped. He did address it, but Con pushed it hard, and many of the premises in that contention were dropped.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think he dropped it adequately.

I'm not sure what you mean by the third one. I didn't see that in the debate, actually, so I'd appreciate if you could fill me in.

Honestly? That was the crux of 75% of his arguments. Mentioned in every vote. Con spent almost all of his final round pushing that rules that Juggle makes are not always just. He completely dropped that. This killed his entire case

Ok, I must have misunderstood you.

Yes, I got that and addressed that in my RFD. I don't believe it killed his case, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

The point is, it was a mistake for him to take the BOP, I honestly believe, but I don't think it was fatal given the way he argued.

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases

This is obviously a very general statement. If you were to mention a particular voter and what you think was missing from their RFD -- and airmax should clarify as to whether that is a personal attack, so don't take my word for it -- I think that would be considered an attack on their arguments, not on them. So, I can't really respond to this unless I have the proper context, but I'm not inclined to think that Mikal's votes were in any way suspicious -- obviously mine isn't.

We must agree to disagree. Basic skimming of YYW and Jonbonbon votes showed that the reasoning relied on Mikal making better arguments. Do you feel those were good votes?

I haven't read them, but I honestly have no reason to question the integrity of either of them or to think that they would issue an unfair or controversial vote. So I'd advise you to take that up with both of them.

As I said, I only reported three votes as having "lack of RFD's". Others were just less than ideal, IMO, but not worthy of a report.

You reported YYW and Jonbonbon?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:36:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:35:37 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:24:42 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:15:05 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:06:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:58:45 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:53:16 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:48:51 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .


First, you accused me of having an unacceptable RFD, so this is an interesting flip flop. I take my votes and my integrity quite seriously and felt that I laid out a thorough case for why I voted for Mikal, which frankly has nothing to do with the fact that I consider him to be a very high caliber debater and a good friend.

False. I outright said in this forum that you were one of two people who had an acceptable RFD. Do not skim and accuse please.

You said in the comment section of the debate that there were only a few votes that you found justified in favor of Mikal, one of which was Bsh's, and I believe the other was Smithereens. You mentioned my name in the forum after the fact, which is great, but that doesn't negate what you previously said unless you'd like to admit that you misspoke, which happens to everyone and isn't something I would hold against you. Actually, I wouldn't hold any of this against you because I think this whole thing is silly, but I digress.

Before that comment, I did acknowledge your vote as acceptable. Even through PM. It is reasonable for you to assume me forgetting to write your name, that I omitted you from being a good voter, in the opinion of myself.

Your vote is the best on that forum, and while we are not in agreement over it, you put time and effort into justifying your case. Once again, kudos!

Second, several people posted their RFDs in the comment section -- Romanii, Endarkened, Whiteflame, etc., so those were well over 400 characters. Mine was in a Google Doc and spanned about 3 pages.

My assertion was only on Mikal voters. Romanii, Whiteflame, Bluesteel, and Endarkened all voted for THIBC. Do not skim and accuse please.

Again, that wasn't skimming and accusing. But, sure, some of the votes on both sides were quite short. I personally don't see that as necessarily unacceptable, but I digress.

Fair enough

Third, even if you questioned voter conduct based on short RFDs, doesn't that implicate both debaters? Frankly, that even implicates you because you yourself voted on that debate with what I could consider a less-than-explicit RFD.

My debate pointed directly to the context of the arguments. I will gladly defend it. By Mikal taking on BOP, he has the responsibility of defeating all arguments which might deny him of fulfilling the BOP.

Correct, and I argued that he has done that.

Fair enough

Taking the burden as serious as I possibly can here. He dropped three contentions, therefore, failed to seriously live up to the set burden. I had implicated this within my RFD.

Which contentions?

- Ore_Ele and not Airmax. All we got was his word
- A trial. Pretty much went dropped
- Completely dropped the "TOS is not always just one". He had to touch this one to fulfill the BOP, and he did not.

He addressed the first by pointing out that it was a consensus between airmax, Ore, and TUF.

No he said they mutually consulted, and made us rely on his word. If I was the one debating him, I would of immediately pointed this out as false. Airmax told me I had an hour to defend myself. Ore_Ele and TUF were both offline, so consultation was impossible.

Sure, but the initial claim relied on your word that airmax has a grudge against you which also couldn't be verified, so the argument is a wash.

BTW, his word is not proof. Therefore, at most, it is only capable of offsetting mine.

I disagree. That was the entire crux of my point: challenging airmax, Ore and TUF and whomever else was involved warrants a completely separate burden of proof. Challenging them based on an assertion isn't enough.

But I see what you're getting at with offsetting.

He pointed out that the trials are pretty rare, and honestly, I think that was outside the parameters of the debate, anyway, since they were debating ad hoc as to whether airmax was justified. Saying that airmax could have done (x) when he was conceivably justified to do (y), which was Mikal's argument, doesn't mean that he wasn't justified in doing (y).

Irrelevant. The point did get more or less dropped. He did address it, but Con pushed it hard, and many of the premises in that contention were dropped.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think he dropped it adequately.

I'm not sure what you mean by the third one. I didn't see that in the debate, actually, so I'd appreciate if you could fill me in.

Honestly? That was the crux of 75% of his arguments. Mentioned in every vote. Con spent almost all of his final round pushing that rules that Juggle makes are not always just. He completely dropped that. This killed his entire case

Ok, I must have misunderstood you.

Yes, I got that and addressed that in my RFD. I don't believe it killed his case, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

The point is, it was a mistake for him to take the BOP, I honestly believe, but I don't think it was fatal given the way he argued.

My problems with Mikal votes, is how so many lacked real context and reasoning for said vote. Its the content and not the length in most cases

This is obviously a very general statement. If you were to mention a particular voter and what you think was missing from their RFD -- and airmax should clarify as to whether that is a personal attack, so don't take my word for it -- I think that would be considered an attack on their arguments, not on them. So, I can't really respond to this unless I have the proper context, but I'm not inclined to think that Mikal's votes were in any way suspicious -- obviously mine isn't.

We must agree to disagree. Basic skimming of YYW and Jonbonbon votes showed that the reasoning relied on Mikal making better arguments. Do you feel those were good votes?

I haven't read them, but I honestly have no reason to question the integrity of either of them or to think that they would issue an unfair or controversial vote. So I'd advise you to take that up with both of them.

As I said, I only reported three votes as having "lack of RFD's". Others were just less than ideal, IMO, but not worthy of a report.

You reported YYW and Jonbonbon?

*I think he addressed it adequately

Oops. Typing from my phone haha.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright, so we agree to disagree. Fair enough. YYW and Jonbonbon only had their votes reported. Not one person has denied that they're pretty terrible votes.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:03:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:37:10 PM, Csareo wrote:
Alright, so we agree to disagree. Fair enough. YYW and Jonbonbon only had their votes reported. Not one person has denied that they're pretty terrible votes.

and they won't get removed. I explained why in the comments if you want to read them
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:19:19 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:14:19 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:10:24 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*

Irrelavant. It simply shows he shouldn't have. EX:

Your sister is out of town, but she left her car. You can't reach her, as her phones dead. You want to borrow her car. Do I have justification to take it without asking?

Your premise is broken. You resolution is negated

Flaws in your analogy, just saying:
What if it is an emergency? If she is my sister, she'd let me borrow her car.

AND technically.... She would have had to leave her car in someone's possession...
So, I don't know if you do this, but in my family, when we are out of town, we'd lend the car to someone in the family we trust, for e.g. My cousin, to get around easily.

===

I see your point though, trolling aside. I was just wondering if you guys had another way of contacting each other for him to ask permission..

Don't beat around the bush. My premise remains the same. You can't assume that what the other person would not mind your actions. This is fallacious logic on your part.

Ex: Your wife is in a coma, and she may or may not come out of it. She has a priceless vase that she adores and loves, and told people to not touch it. Is it ok for the husband to sell it?

Mikal knew in advance I was opposed to debates on my conduct. A lack of my response does not signal that I agree. IE:

Just because I didn't say no, does not mean I say yes

I was joking around above. I admitted it by saying I was "trolling."

Let me rephrase the last question I asked.

Have you been in contact with Mikal since you, as Jifpop, had been banned?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:24:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 3:04:08 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:19:19 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:14:19 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:10:24 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*

Irrelavant. It simply shows he shouldn't have. EX:

Your sister is out of town, but she left her car. You can't reach her, as her phones dead. You want to borrow her car. Do I have justification to take it without asking?

Your premise is broken. You resolution is negated

Flaws in your analogy, just saying:
What if it is an emergency? If she is my sister, she'd let me borrow her car.

AND technically.... She would have had to leave her car in someone's possession...
So, I don't know if you do this, but in my family, when we are out of town, we'd lend the car to someone in the family we trust, for e.g. My cousin, to get around easily.

===

I see your point though, trolling aside. I was just wondering if you guys had another way of contacting each other for him to ask permission..

Don't beat around the bush. My premise remains the same. You can't assume that what the other person would not mind your actions. This is fallacious logic on your part.

Ex: Your wife is in a coma, and she may or may not come out of it. She has a priceless vase that she adores and loves, and told people to not touch it. Is it ok for the husband to sell it?

Mikal knew in advance I was opposed to debates on my conduct. A lack of my response does not signal that I agree. IE:

Just because I didn't say no, does not mean I say yes

I was joking around above. I admitted it by saying I was "trolling."

Let me rephrase the last question I asked.

Have you been in contact with Mikal since you, as Jifpop, had been banned?

It is entirely irrelevant. Whether he feels personal attacked and whether it is actually a personally attack are 2 different things. You could justify anything with that

Granted I had no way to contact him if i wanted him too. I also hate the guy, but that does not mean the debate is a personal attack.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:24:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I'm making a new forum topic, as the other one is already flooded in different converations, and was derailed. I only made this for discussion, like Wrcriw.

Now, many people defended Mikal's right to make this debate, but what people didn't know, is that he has made "Jifpop09 should be banned" debates several times. Everyone, I had the mod delete it. On one of those debates, I was threatened that every time I don't accept the debate, he would link an illicit picture of me.

So, the mod did delete all of these, but they still kept being made. My resolution is, that Mikal knew very well what he was doing, and that I did not like it. The fact that I was banned does not change this premise.

I also have to back up wrcriw. Bladerunner and Airmax reasoned that the debate was about Airmax's actions, and not mine. This is fallacious. The debate had me in the title...

"Airmax was just for banning Jifpop09"

Yes, this debate could of went on 100% without mentioning me. Even if it did, the fact that several arguments were made on my conduct by Mikal, inadvertently forces this to be an attack debate. Whether this was his intention, which it may or may not of been, the result is the same.

Citrayakah had a similar debate with Khaos before. Khao's, argued that GOP gerrymandering and weed criminalization was not intended to hurt minorities. Citrayakah argued this....

The result = the intention

I think this holds true. Even if you argue against this, can we at least agree that Mikal could of taken steps to lessen the result, if it were not his intention?

That's the point I was trying to make. Mikal, who was called into question by several users for attacking me, took no steps to fix this. He continued to use attacks on my conduct as the crux of his arguments.

Therefore, Mikal's unwillingness to shift course, proves that attacking me was his intention.

If the debate were an attack on you, then I would agree that attacking you was his intention, or at least part of his intention.

However, the debate is not an attack on you. It is an examination of your actions. Does that examination reflect poorly on you? Yes, it does. But no more so than you taking hose actions in the first place did.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid double posting, I also want to bring up voting conduct. That debate in particular, had several voters who wrote 400 character RFD's. Only two people on that debate got near the RFD character limit, and that's Smithereens and progressive .

My problem with this is, if the other side takes the time to write 6000 character RFD's, then why is it ok for the people who vote for Mikal to write 400 character one's. I don't think that's just, and if allowed, should be changed.

Maybe they really feel that Mikal deserved the points. That's ok, just say why in a RFD. The premise of nearly every vote was....

"Con failed to convince me"

Perhaps the votes you are talking about were removed due to poor RFDs. If not, then I'm unsure which votes you think had poor RFDs. I didn't sift through the comments to read those RFDs, but those votes were all in favor of Con anyways. (although personally I don't think people should be allowed to put their RFDs in the comments section, though the character limit would also need to be removed.)


I thought this was unfair, as pro had taken the bop. This forum has bought up two resolutions which I firmly stand with.....

1. If a debate centers around a person, they should be asked if its alright


The debate doesn't center around you. It centers around your actions, and the actions taken by the moderators in response to those actions.

2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate


I don't entirely agree with this, but I would agree that the majority of RFDs on this site are inadequate (admittedly, my own RFDs have not always been of an acceptable quality). If anything, IMO, the character limit should be changed to a character minimum.

I also call for a vote rating system, like Edeb8 has. This would encourage people to write longer RFD's, and show when someones vote is less legitimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also heard several accusations that I was the one who debated Mikal. This is not so, but I will keep the debaters name a secret

I wouldn't have a problem with it if you were the Contender in the debate. Everyone has a right to defend their actions.

That said, I'll take you at your word that you weren't the Contender, as I see no reason not to, nor do I care if you were.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please discuss....
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:


2. Votes should be suited towards the amount of content in the debate. Votes should summarize every argument in the debate

That's dumb. At the end of the day there are often arguments that don't factor into your decision, there's no need to waste time summarizing an argument that turns out to be a wash.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:31:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 2:24:42 PM, Csareo wrote:
Airmax told me I had an hour to defend myself. Ore_Ele and TUF were both offline, so consultation was impossible.

You are just making things up here. Ore_ele and TUF can both confirm that I spoke to them during the time you were ignoring me.

I'm also getting pretty tired of this claim that I gave you "an hour to defend yourself" and the way you are spinning it. I never said anything about defending yourself, and you had more than enough time to reply. I had already stated 45 minutes earlier that if you didn't reply you were facing a 2 week ban. That increased to just giving you an hour and implying a perm-ban to impress upon you the seriousness of the situation. Then I found out beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were simply ignoring me (I had mistakenly given you the benefit of the doubt), by instead sending out a mass PM to complain.

Would you mind if I detail exactly the time frame of this and what I had said, so that what actually occurred and the amount of time you had to reply can be put into context (so that we can finally put this to rest)? I certainly wont do so without your permission, but I'm also not going to simply ignore the false things you are saying, so you should stop now.

I really don't want to do this. I don't want to embarrass you, I don't want to fight with you, I don't want to have any negative interactions with you ever again. I want to move on and I thought you wanted to move on. So please, let's just move on.
Debate.org Moderator
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 3:24:00 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/22/2014 3:04:08 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:19:19 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:14:19 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:10:24 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:08:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:43:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:41:55 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:

How could he have when you were banned though? *shrugs*

Irrelavant. It simply shows he shouldn't have. EX:

Your sister is out of town, but she left her car. You can't reach her, as her phones dead. You want to borrow her car. Do I have justification to take it without asking?

Your premise is broken. You resolution is negated

Flaws in your analogy, just saying:
What if it is an emergency? If she is my sister, she'd let me borrow her car.

AND technically.... She would have had to leave her car in someone's possession...
So, I don't know if you do this, but in my family, when we are out of town, we'd lend the car to someone in the family we trust, for e.g. My cousin, to get around easily.

===

I see your point though, trolling aside. I was just wondering if you guys had another way of contacting each other for him to ask permission..

Don't beat around the bush. My premise remains the same. You can't assume that what the other person would not mind your actions. This is fallacious logic on your part.

Ex: Your wife is in a coma, and she may or may not come out of it. She has a priceless vase that she adores and loves, and told people to not touch it. Is it ok for the husband to sell it?

Mikal knew in advance I was opposed to debates on my conduct. A lack of my response does not signal that I agree. IE:

Just because I didn't say no, does not mean I say yes

I was joking around above. I admitted it by saying I was "trolling."

Let me rephrase the last question I asked.

Have you been in contact with Mikal since you, as Jifpop, had been banned?

It is entirely irrelevant. Whether he feels personal attacked and whether it is actually a personally attack are 2 different things. You could justify anything with that

Granted I had no way to contact him if i wanted him too. I also hate the guy, but that does not mean the debate is a personal attack.

I would try to attempt to make another troll case, but I think I hurt his feelings... so I'm gonna stop now.

Sorry Jif.

Love always,
The Wasp.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 3:31:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

I'm also getting pretty tired of this claim that I gave you "an hour to defend yourself" and the way you are spinning it.

I am getting tired seeing it.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:43:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 3:31:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/22/2014 2:24:42 PM, Csareo wrote:
Airmax told me I had an hour to defend myself. Ore_Ele and TUF were both offline, so consultation was impossible.

You are just making things up here. Ore_ele and TUF can both confirm that I spoke to them during the time you were ignoring me.

I'm also getting pretty tired of this claim that I gave you "an hour to defend yourself" and the way you are spinning it. I never said anything about defending yourself, and you had more than enough time to reply. I had already stated 45 minutes earlier that if you didn't reply you were facing a 2 week ban. That increased to just giving you an hour and implying a perm-ban to impress upon you the seriousness of the situation. Then I found out beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were simply ignoring me (I had mistakenly given you the benefit of the doubt), by instead sending out a mass PM to complain.

Would you mind if I detail exactly the time frame of this and what I had said, so that what actually occurred and the amount of time you had to reply can be put into context (so that we can finally put this to rest)? I certainly wont do so without your permission, but I'm also not going to simply ignore the false things you are saying, so you should stop now.

I really don't want to do this. I don't want to embarrass you, I don't want to fight with you, I don't want to have any negative interactions with you ever again. I want to move on and I thought you wanted to move on. So please, let's just move on.

How absolutely hypocritical Airmax. I have moved on, yet you bring this up, debate it, and tell me to leave it alone.

Have I fought with you any further since the last time we talked? Have I questioned your decisions any further. We are discussing a debate, and my POV, was that we are left to rely on his word against mine.

On a even greater level, your word. We are supposed to take your word, when considering if Con's premise was correct. I was simply refuting on how this is not possible. You can prove it of course, but within the context of the debate, Mikal can't.

Which is why the voters accused him of having weak arguments in refutation. If you truly don't want to fight this, then don't start instigating 12 hours after we agreed to a truce.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:43:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:21:41 PM, Csareo wrote:
Now, many people defended Mikal's right to make this debate, but what people didn't know, is that he has made "Jifpop09 should be banned" debates several times.

The debate that's most recently finished is not going to get deleted because it doesn't violate any rules. The debate is not, contrary to what some might think, a personal attack of any kind nor does it violate either the new moderation policy (including its recent addendum from Ore-Ele) nor does it violate the TOS.

Bladerunner and Airmax reasoned that the debate was about Airmax's actions, and not mine. This is fallacious. The debate had me in the title...

The debate was about Airmax's actions, as anyone who took the half second required to read the resolution should be fully aware -Airmax's action's as they relate to disciplinary action which pertains to you. If Mikal made up some fictitious account of what you did to justify that ban with the intent to smear you, then and only then would it constitute a personal attack. Facts, no matter how unpleasant they may be, do not count as personal attacks and that's a reality that no matter how ardently you or any other member protest, will not change.

This is a problem that I'd like to think that you'd eventually be able to move past, nevertheless. Right now, you're a kid with a bruised ego -and your ego may have deserved to be bruised because of the way you acted in the forums. That's not to say you're a bad person, but you did some bad things. The way you (and every other member) should have handled it is to let it go -and penning paltry attempts at self vindication isn't going to make either that debate more likely to be removed or for any member of this community who has the presence of mind to see this (and other threads in a similar vein) for what they are think any more highly of you.

The thing you and all others who didn't like the debate SHOULD have done is talk to the Mods about it. But that didn't happen, so here we all are.

Maybe they really feel that Mikal deserved the points. That's ok, just say why in a RFD. The premise of nearly every vote was....

I don't care that you or anyone else reported my votes, btw. I'm happy to have them scrutinized. Also realize that Mikal won that debate without question.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:44:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This thread was, is and will continue to be one of the most startlingly unproductive exercises in imprudence that the forum has seen since the last one like it.
Tsar of DDO