Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Vote contesting

Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature. He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature.

It was contextually defined. And saying something is contextually defined and there are no semantics is a contradiction.

He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

It was a contest. The K was just to elicit more contradiction. You had about 10 contradictions the whole debate.
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature.

It was contextually defined. And saying something is contextually defined and there are no semantics is a contradiction.

You linked to a dictionary.com article. Saying something is contextually defined means you glean the meaning from one's usage in a sentence. What you did was link my statement into your interpretation of a contradiction. That breaks the rules outright. You've already let on in the comments of that debate that you didn't care about the round, you only cared about padding your ELO score. What you're doing is a disgrace to the activity and it fosters conflict the debate community.


He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

It was a contest. The K was just to elicit more contradiction. You had about 10 contradictions the whole debate.

The you should have noted them. You didn't do that because you wanted to make a low-blow argument and get a cheap win. Regardless of your intent with that K, you still made it and I turned it. At the point you link into it and choose not to kick it, it becomes an unconditional argument that you lose the debate on.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:50:54 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature.

It was contextually defined. And saying something is contextually defined and there are no semantics is a contradiction.

You linked to a dictionary.com article. Saying something is contextually defined means you glean the meaning from one's usage in a sentence. What you did was link my statement into your interpretation of a contradiction. That breaks the rules outright. You've already let on in the comments of that debate that you didn't care about the round, you only cared about padding your ELO score. What you're doing is a disgrace to the activity and it fosters conflict the debate community.


He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

It was a contest. The K was just to elicit more contradiction. You had about 10 contradictions the whole debate.

The you should have noted them. You didn't do that because you wanted to make a low-blow argument and get a cheap win. Regardless of your intent with that K, you still made it and I turned it. At the point you link into it and choose not to kick it, it becomes an unconditional argument that you lose the debate on.

Nope, it wasn't a debate, it was a contest and I won. Plus your rebuttal of it was weak.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:52:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:50:54 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature.

It was contextually defined. And saying something is contextually defined and there are no semantics is a contradiction.

You linked to a dictionary.com article. Saying something is contextually defined means you glean the meaning from one's usage in a sentence. What you did was link my statement into your interpretation of a contradiction. That breaks the rules outright. You've already let on in the comments of that debate that you didn't care about the round, you only cared about padding your ELO score. What you're doing is a disgrace to the activity and it fosters conflict the debate community.

Words have actual meanings contextually defined means determining which dictionary definition is relevant according to context


He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

It was a contest. The K was just to elicit more contradiction. You had about 10 contradictions the whole debate.

The you should have noted them. You didn't do that because you wanted to make a low-blow argument and get a cheap win. Regardless of your intent with that K, you still made it and I turned it. At the point you link into it and choose not to kick it, it becomes an unconditional argument that you lose the debate on.
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:54:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:52:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:50:54 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature.

It was contextually defined. And saying something is contextually defined and there are no semantics is a contradiction.

You linked to a dictionary.com article. Saying something is contextually defined means you glean the meaning from one's usage in a sentence. What you did was link my statement into your interpretation of a contradiction. That breaks the rules outright. You've already let on in the comments of that debate that you didn't care about the round, you only cared about padding your ELO score. What you're doing is a disgrace to the activity and it fosters conflict the debate community.

Words have actual meanings contextually defined means determining which dictionary definition is relevant according to context

You don't get to make up your own rules about how debate works. The phrase 'Contextually defined' means that you understand the term through it's given use in a specific context: http://www.cross-x.com...



He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

It was a contest. The K was just to elicit more contradiction. You had about 10 contradictions the whole debate.

The you should have noted them. You didn't do that because you wanted to make a low-blow argument and get a cheap win. Regardless of your intent with that K, you still made it and I turned it. At the point you link into it and choose not to kick it, it becomes an unconditional argument that you lose the debate on.
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:56:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:34:32 PM, Beginner wrote:
Well, you did legitimately contradict yourself.

Con makes two argumens one could vote me down on. The first is a direct violation of the rules and the second is a lie. If you ctrl+f that debate I never write 'a prioris'. The only instance of that phrase is in Con's round 5.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:59:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:54:42 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:52:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:50:54 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature.

It was contextually defined. And saying something is contextually defined and there are no semantics is a contradiction.

You linked to a dictionary.com article. Saying something is contextually defined means you glean the meaning from one's usage in a sentence. What you did was link my statement into your interpretation of a contradiction. That breaks the rules outright. You've already let on in the comments of that debate that you didn't care about the round, you only cared about padding your ELO score. What you're doing is a disgrace to the activity and it fosters conflict the debate community.

Words have actual meanings contextually defined means determining which dictionary definition is relevant according to context

You don't get to make up your own rules about how debate works. The phrase 'Contextually defined' means that you understand the term through it's given use in a specific context: http://www.cross-x.com...



He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

It was a contest. The K was just to elicit more contradiction. You had about 10 contradictions the whole debate.

The you should have noted them. You didn't do that because you wanted to make a low-blow argument and get a cheap win. Regardless of your intent with that K, you still made it and I turned it. At the point you link into it and choose not to kick it, it becomes an unconditional argument that you lose the debate on.

Really, you found a random thread with random people and 1 happens to agree with you and that's evidence?
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 12:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:56:06 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:32 PM, Beginner wrote:
Well, you did legitimately contradict yourself.

Con makes two argumens one could vote me down on. The first is a direct violation of the rules and the second is a lie. If you ctrl+f that debate I never write 'a prioris'. The only instance of that phrase is in Con's round 5.
lol the difference literally lies in the 's'.
Wylted simply plural referenced your use of the term.

In any case, you denied being any entity and then claimed to be an entity. Wylted pointed that out.
Senpai has noticed you.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:59:31 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:56:06 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:32 PM, Beginner wrote:
Well, you did legitimately contradict yourself.

Con makes two argumens one could vote me down on. The first is a direct violation of the rules and the second is a lie. If you ctrl+f that debate I never write 'a prioris'. The only instance of that phrase is in Con's round 5.
lol the difference literally lies in the 's'.
Wylted simply plural referenced your use of the term.

In any case, you denied being any entity and then claimed to be an entity. Wylted pointed that out.

Can you vote on that debate, if you haven't yet :)
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:04:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:59:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
Really, you found a random thread with random people and 1 happens to agree with you and that's evidence?

The idea of defining terms contextually has existed in competitive debate for a very long time. It's not my fault you don't know about it http://groups.wfu.edu...
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:06:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:59:31 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:56:06 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:32 PM, Beginner wrote:
Well, you did legitimately contradict yourself.

Con makes two argumens one could vote me down on. The first is a direct violation of the rules and the second is a lie. If you ctrl+f that debate I never write 'a prioris'. The only instance of that phrase is in Con's round 5.
lol the difference literally lies in the 's'.
Wylted simply plural referenced your use of the term.

In any case, you denied being any entity and then claimed to be an entity. Wylted pointed that out.

If I say we're going to play a game of chess, and you place your pawn on top of my own pay, you didn't just have you didn't get your piece 'kinged'. I make it clear that the debate operates on contextual definitions, and Con uses semantic definitions to make that argument.

It breaks the rules, and that's Bvllshit.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:08:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 1:06:05 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:59:31 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:56:06 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:32 PM, Beginner wrote:
Well, you did legitimately contradict yourself.

Con makes two argumens one could vote me down on. The first is a direct violation of the rules and the second is a lie. If you ctrl+f that debate I never write 'a prioris'. The only instance of that phrase is in Con's round 5.
lol the difference literally lies in the 's'.
Wylted simply plural referenced your use of the term.

In any case, you denied being any entity and then claimed to be an entity. Wylted pointed that out.

If I say we're going to play a game of chess, and you place your pawn on top of my own pay, you didn't just have you didn't get your piece 'kinged'. I make it clear that the debate operates on contextual definitions, and Con uses semantic definitions to make that argument.

It breaks the rules, and that's Bvllshit.

I have a guide on rigging votes that may come in handy for you and make it possible for you to salvage a win.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:13:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature. He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

So was it your plan to just say whatever you said wasn't a contradiction because you "contextually defined" it in a different way the whole time.

If you weren't defining entity the way I showed people commonly use it as WTF were you trying to define it as?
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 1:13:52 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature. He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

So was it your plan to just say whatever you said wasn't a contradiction because you "contextually defined" it in a different way the whole time.

If you weren't defining entity the way I showed people commonly use it as WTF were you trying to define it as?

What you did was unethical. I have to get ready for a class I have in an hour, but I will be back later on tonight to discuss this further.

I don't care if this gets to that debate gets to the front page as you caution against, but I will not stand for this kind of action. What you are doing harms the activity and your response is even worse. I don't know this community very well yet, but I hope this isn't standard practice.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 1:22:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 1:21:21 PM, Whataburger wrote:
At 2/5/2015 1:13:52 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:21:50 PM, Whataburger wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

What's the correct course of action here? I make the rules clear that terms are defined contextually and semantics have no sway, yet Wylted's only posited contradictions are semantic in nature. He completely ignores the rules and doesn't take the debate seriously until the final round when I'm not able to respond. Context means that meaning needs to be gleaned from the given use of the language in the round. Con uses a dictionary definition to link my statements as a perceived contradiction.

And what's with the BS RFD or 'Well Wylted was the only one to use sources'

Also, he links into his K, doesn't bother to kick it, and doesn't respond to the turn I make.

So was it your plan to just say whatever you said wasn't a contradiction because you "contextually defined" it in a different way the whole time.

If you weren't defining entity the way I showed people commonly use it as WTF were you trying to define it as?

What you did was unethical. I have to get ready for a class I have in an hour, but I will be back later on tonight to discuss this further.

I don't care if this gets to that debate gets to the front page as you caution against, but I will not stand for this kind of action. What you are doing harms the activity and your response is even worse. I don't know this community very well yet, but I hope this isn't standard practice.

It's standard practice for me to whip people's asses in debates.
Whataburger
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:23:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay so first off, BUMP. What do I need to do in order to have this fixed? What method of recourse do I have to keep Con from winning a debate that he cheated in?

If anyone reading this would care to read the debate, comments section or this thread you'll notice a few things.

1. Con accepted the debate with dishonest intentions. He states several times over that he never intended to point out a contradiction until the last round when I wouldn't have had an opportunity to respond.

2. He breaks the rules when he uses semantic arguments rather than interpreting the terms contextually. He's apparently never heard of defining terms contextually and gives a bvllshit answer to this action.

3. He shows that the only reason he ever accepted the debate was to pad his ELO score through what he thought was going to be a n00b-sniped debate.

4. He makes an outright lie and claims that I contradicted myself by referring to the rules as both 'a priori' and 'a prioris'. If you ctrl+f that debate and search 'a prioris' the only place you'll find that term is in Con's round 5.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:41:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 6:23:08 PM, Whataburger wrote:
Okay so first off, BUMP. What do I need to do in order to have this fixed? What method of recourse do I have to keep Con from winning a debate that he cheated in?


See my black hat guide to vote rigging. That is the course of action you can take.

If anyone reading this would care to read the debate, comments section or this thread you'll notice a few things.

1. Con accepted the debate with dishonest intentions. He states several times over that he never intended to point out a contradiction until the last round when I wouldn't have had an opportunity to respond.

Yep, it's easier to win if you can't respond to what I say.


2. He breaks the rules when he uses semantic arguments rather than interpreting the terms contextually. He's apparently never heard of defining terms contextually and gives a bvllshit answer to this action.

Not true. I used context to determine the correct definition.


3. He shows that the only reason he ever accepted the debate was to pad his ELO score through what he thought was going to be a n00b-sniped debate.

Reverse is true. You set this up as an easy win.


4. He makes an outright lie and claims that I contradicted myself by referring to the rules as both 'a priori' and 'a prioris'. If you ctrl+f that debate and search 'a prioris' the only place you'll find that term is in Con's round 5.

That's what Joe said
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:31:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

He's being a dik to me. He expected an easy win and I over came it. He's now trying to redefine what a contextual definition is in order to justify a win, and extending the debate.

I think him attacking me publicly is a good reason to be a dik to him.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:35:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out

You didn't point them so I can't give you credit for them.

if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard

I can't judge arguments that weren't ever made in the debate, otherwise that'd be me intervening my bias into the debate.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:13:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:35:57 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out

You didn't point them so I can't give you credit for them.

if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard

I can't judge arguments that weren't ever made in the debate, otherwise that'd be me intervening my bias into the debate.

Actually it's a contest not a debate, so even if I didn't directly point out his contradictions, voters should award me the points.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:15:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:13:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:35:57 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out

You didn't point them so I can't give you credit for them.

if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard

I can't judge arguments that weren't ever made in the debate, otherwise that'd be me intervening my bias into the debate.

Actually it's a contest not a debate, so even if I didn't directly point out his contradictions, voters should award me the points.

The difference is non-existent. As a judge on a contest or a debate, I'm still bound to the same voting ethics and standards.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:17:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:15:03 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:13:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:35:57 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out

You didn't point them so I can't give you credit for them.

if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard

I can't judge arguments that weren't ever made in the debate, otherwise that'd be me intervening my bias into the debate.

Actually it's a contest not a debate, so even if I didn't directly point out his contradictions, voters should award me the points.

The difference is non-existent. As a judge on a contest or a debate, I'm still bound to the same voting ethics and standards.

The rules were that he wouldn't contradict himself. There isn't a single rule that states I actually need to point them out. If a judge finds one it would be ethical for him to vote in my favor even if I miss it.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:19:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:17:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:15:03 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:13:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:35:57 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out

You didn't point them so I can't give you credit for them.

if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard

I can't judge arguments that weren't ever made in the debate, otherwise that'd be me intervening my bias into the debate.

Actually it's a contest not a debate, so even if I didn't directly point out his contradictions, voters should award me the points.

The difference is non-existent. As a judge on a contest or a debate, I'm still bound to the same voting ethics and standards.

The rules were that he wouldn't contradict himself. There isn't a single rule that states I actually need to point them out. If a judge finds one it would be ethical for him to vote in my favor even if I miss it.

Because as a judge it's my job to only evaluate what's presented within the rounds of the debate/contest. Doing so would be intervening into the debate/contest, which is unfair.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:30:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:19:47 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:17:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:15:03 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:13:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:35:57 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:20:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/6/2015 12:36:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:44:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:59:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/5/2015 12:34:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

Dude, come on. It's one thing to be an a** to veteran members (because we know you). It's another thing to be an a** to purple circles (because they probably won't ever become legit members so who gives a f*ck).

But it's another thing entirely to be an a** to someone who's legitimately interested in being a member of the site. You're not doing you or the site any favors.

Then again I know you don't give two sh*ts so this is all probably just a waste of a post.

It's actually pretty messed up you did a vigilante vote on that debate anyway.

But you lost the debate. Your contradictions were sh*t and you waited to point them out until the last round where he couldn't respond which means I put less weight on them.

I had about 5 more contradictions to point out

You didn't point them so I can't give you credit for them.

if space permitted and things are either contradictions or not, pretty easy judging standard

I can't judge arguments that weren't ever made in the debate, otherwise that'd be me intervening my bias into the debate.

Actually it's a contest not a debate, so even if I didn't directly point out his contradictions, voters should award me the points.

The difference is non-existent. As a judge on a contest or a debate, I'm still bound to the same voting ethics and standards.

The rules were that he wouldn't contradict himself. There isn't a single rule that states I actually need to point them out. If a judge finds one it would be ethical for him to vote in my favor even if I miss it.

Because as a judge it's my job to only evaluate what's presented within the rounds of the debate/contest. Doing so would be intervening into the debate/contest, which is unfair.

But that goes against pro's stated rules. Pro stated if he contradicts himself he loses, so you're choosing to judge in a way that goes against, pro's stated rules.

I'm not sure I understand why you'd go against the judging criteria mentioned in round 1, but that's cool.

I think we're getting nowhere in this conversation.