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

Best Debate ever on DDO?

kingkd
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What do you think was the greatest debate that ever occured on this site? Please do not use this as an oppurtunity to advertise your debates.
The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper
-Barack Obama
"I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more."
airmax1227
"Water is wet."
airmax1227
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:15:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 11:12:38 PM, kingkd wrote:
What do you think was the greatest debate that ever occured on this site? Please do not use this as an oppurtunity to advertise your debates.

The most memorable and entertaining one I've seen has probably got to be the "Caucasians are smarter than blacks" debate.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:51:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.debate.org...

Bluesteel vs. Innomen on Democratization & Nicaraguan Elections
Why isn't this in the hall of fame?

Same with these...

https://www.debate.org...
Grape vs Unitedandy on the Welfare State

https://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon vs Freeman on Torture

https://www.debate.org...
Whiteflame vs Phantom on an Open Borders Policy

https://www.debate.org...
Popculturepooka vs Envisage on Religious Experiences

https://www.debate.org...
Raisor vs F16 on Nuclear ICBM forces

https://www.debate.org...
Roy vs FourTrouble on Free Trade

https://www.debate.org...
Thett3 vs BlackVoid on Conquering Africa
anything your heart desires
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 1:22:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:51:01 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
https://www.debate.org...

Bluesteel vs. Innomen on Democratization & Nicaraguan Elections
Why isn't this in the hall of fame?

Same with these...

https://www.debate.org...
Grape vs Unitedandy on the Welfare State

https://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon vs Freeman on Torture

https://www.debate.org...
Whiteflame vs Phantom on an Open Borders Policy

https://www.debate.org...
Popculturepooka vs Envisage on Religious Experiences

https://www.debate.org...
Raisor vs F16 on Nuclear ICBM forces

https://www.debate.org...
Roy vs FourTrouble on Free Trade

https://www.debate.org...
Thett3 vs BlackVoid on Conquering Africa

So I heard you're a new member.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 1:24:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 1:22:24 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:51:01 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
https://www.debate.org...

Bluesteel vs. Innomen on Democratization & Nicaraguan Elections
Why isn't this in the hall of fame?

Same with these...

https://www.debate.org...
Grape vs Unitedandy on the Welfare State

https://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon vs Freeman on Torture

https://www.debate.org...
Whiteflame vs Phantom on an Open Borders Policy

https://www.debate.org...
Popculturepooka vs Envisage on Religious Experiences

https://www.debate.org...
Raisor vs F16 on Nuclear ICBM forces

https://www.debate.org...
Roy vs FourTrouble on Free Trade

https://www.debate.org...
Thett3 vs BlackVoid on Conquering Africa

So I heard you're a new member.

Indeed I am.
anything your heart desires
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 1:50:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:51:01 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
https://www.debate.org...

Bluesteel vs. Innomen on Democratization & Nicaraguan Elections
Why isn't this in the hall of fame?

Same with these...

https://www.debate.org...
Grape vs Unitedandy on the Welfare State

https://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon vs Freeman on Torture

https://www.debate.org...
Whiteflame vs Phantom on an Open Borders Policy

https://www.debate.org...
Popculturepooka vs Envisage on Religious Experiences

https://www.debate.org...
Raisor vs F16 on Nuclear ICBM forces

https://www.debate.org...
Roy vs FourTrouble on Free Trade

https://www.debate.org...
Thett3 vs BlackVoid on Conquering Africa

Dam, I like this guy already. I don't think I ever thought I'd be mentioned in a list of best debates ever. Haha.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:01:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 1:50:35 AM, FourTrouble wrote:

You have some awesome debates. In particular, I like the one you had with Spinko on the NAP. A lot of hardcore philosophical debates I've read just confused me, but you did a great job of making a strong argument that was also clear and easy to understand. I wouldnt mind seeing you do more of those.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:01:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:16:30 AM, Maikuru wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Thatnks for the shoutout... though I think it's hard to compare that debate to the more serious and conventional types
Debate.org Moderator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:01:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Nicaraguan debater was one of my favorites overall but if I look at it objectively, it was a bit lopsided.

Raisor vs Partam on Legos vs Knex was pretty close and awesome: http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:53:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 3:01:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The Nicaraguan debater was one of my favorites overall but if I look at it objectively, it was a bit lopsided.

I'd probably say that was one of my best performances on the site, which makes it all the more ironic to me that I lost. I was just coming off researching illberal democracies and their civil wars in depth, so I knew all the studies really well. And looking back over it, the way I set up realism vs. idealism was a good way to frame the debate. I know I spent hours editing my arguments for that particular debate so that my word economy was spot on. I took it seriously because it was innomen. It was kind of disheartening at the time to lose that one, especially given the way it happened and the other bad votes on the debate (ah, the times prior to mods having power to remove votes).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:10:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 3:01:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The Nicaraguan debater was one of my favorites overall but if I look at it objectively, it was a bit lopsided.

I just became curious on that debate. There are 21 votes on it. By the current moderation standards, only 10 would be allowed to remain. Nine of those were in my favor.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:53:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 4:10:13 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/23/2015 3:01:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The Nicaraguan debater was one of my favorites overall but if I look at it objectively, it was a bit lopsided.

I just became curious on that debate. There are 21 votes on it. By the current moderation standards, only 10 would be allowed to remain. Nine of those were in my favor.

That's interesting. Votes from established debaters like Ore_Ele and RoyLatham would have been removed by current moderation standards.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:21:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
These are the only votes that would have remained:

1) Phantom (3 points for innomen)

RFD: I was back and forth throughout the debate and changed my mind every round except the last round. Both debaters started out strong. Pro started by showing that Daniel Ortega clearly violated Nicaraguan law. Con could not really refute this. All he could do was argue that this was not a legitimate reason to follow pros resolution. Con made the argument that we would no longer be able to deal with Nicaragua if we did not recognize the results. Pro successfully refuted that by pointing out that Ortega hates the United States so we would not lose much diplomacy. One of cons stronger points was that cutting ties with Ortega would result in forcing him to become closer with Hugo Chavez. Pro could only partially refutes this by pointing out that Chavez is expected to live for only another two years. Pro supports his arguments by showing seven other countries that do not recognize the election. Con argues that Nicaragua was a illiberal democracy, and so it should not surprise us that voter fraud went on. However this does not fully address pros arguments and the AMOUNT of voter fraud that went on. Con points out Ortega's approval ratings, however we can't be sure these are accurate. Pro narrowly won in my opinion.

* This was a good one and probably the one vote for innomen that was actually good enough.

2) thett3 (3 points for bluesteel)

RFD in comments

3) SocialPinko (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD: This was a close debate. The part that pushed me towards Con though was the study showing that refusal by America to recognize a regime made a coup much more likely. Pro's response that a coup is not what he is specifically advocating ignored the fact that it is likely to happen if the U.S. refuses to recognize the results, whether that was what he had supported or not. Everything else was tied. Great debate by both.

4) F-16 (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

5) Maikuru (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD: Conduct and grammar were appropriate from both parties. Sources were also used well by both sides and weren't deciding factors. If the crux of this debate is "What does the US gain by not recognizing the election results," Con comes out on top. The US may gain some moral standing but it harms itself and Nicaragua (economically and, as an extension, its citizens) in the process. Pro didn't persuade me as to why this trade-off was worth it.

6) Chthonian (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

7) Raisor (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD: I could almost cast my vote on the coup issue alone. Innomen never addressed this and bluesteel provides super specific evidence. Same goes for the "too poor for democracy" issue. Bluesteel just provides a very solid case that goes unrefuted on most fronts. Innomen you did a decent job. You just need some strong arguments/evidence in support of foreign policy that backs democracies.

8) Danielle (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

9) BlackVoid (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

10) Marauder (3 points to bluesteel)

This was a really good debate on both parts. Things Con did not address: the example of Costa Rica's success, and the anticipated death of Hugo Chavez in 2 years effects Things Pro did not adress effectively: the studies that a coup would form if we did what he asks, effects of conditional aid, and he did not argue strongly enough just what he did want to happen exactly. Con gave a load of cause and effects and Pro only took a position on those effects he did not exactly argue they wouldn't oc

11) GreyParrot (0-0 tie)

RFD: I can't make up my mind.

* I guess this is legitimate since he didn't award any points so nothing to explain.

9 for blue, 1 for innomen, 1 tie. Score: 27-3

These votes would have been removed:

12) imabench (5 points for bluesteel)

RFD: Con had a good argument about how futile it was and how basically we can only accept it or act like its not there and showed the consequences of both. Sounded convincing even though i think this leader is a prick and agree with the pro

* Didn't explain sources point. Insufficient explanation for arguments

13) DanT (4 points for innomen)

RFD: Overall better argument, regarding foreign affairs.

* Fail on every level.

14) 16kadams (5-1 to innomen)

RFD: In my eyes con never addressd the issue of the constitutional problems. So since that is probably the biggest part of the debate, well the best argument for pro then he wins. Con never addressed it really. Sorry to change my vote, but I looked over the scources and innomen gets that, I will give grammar to con though after this re-read

* No explanation for sources or grammar

15) RoyLatham (5 points to bluesteel)

A very good debate. There was agreement that Ortega is a dictator who seized power. So the question is whether accepting the fact of his control of the country is better for the US. Con's broad argument in favor of "realism" was not totally convincing, but Pro didn't point out the many exceptions that have been made depending upon circumstances. I think Con barely made the case that engagement would be better in this case, based upon te advantages of interacting.

* Failure to explain sources point.

16) Ore_Ele (5 points to innomen)

RFD: I have to vote for Innomen on this because it was brought up in the comments prior to Bluesteel accepting this debate, that this was about recognizing Ortega as the democratically elected leader, rather than just the leader (see comments 2 and 3). "OreEle, it would have to be the democratically elected leader." As such, arguments that don't focus on that are not relavent.

* Failure to explain sources, uses arguments from outside the debate

17) Buckethead (4-2 to innomen)

RFD: I agree with 16kadams. Pro's arguments seemed a little more convincing.

* piggybacking, lack of explanation for arguments point.

18) Gileandos (7-0 to innomen)

RFD: Adjusting my vote to counter Mirza's vote bomb.

* Votebomb

19) ApostateAbe (6-1 to innomen)

RFD: I am sympathetic to realpolitik, and the reasoning of innomen seemed to have the upper hand from even that perspective. I did not like Con's argument relating to the supreme court of Nicaragua. Bush v. Gore was not a fitting comparison. The court was not illegally stuffed for the Bush v. Gore decision. I gave Pro the point for spelling, because Con's "Lol," kinda rubbed me the wrong way, but upon review he did have better English than Pro.

* Fails to explains sources, personal bias to some extent but mostly lack of explanation for sources

20) Zetsubou (5-0 to innomen)

RFD: Bluesteel's argument is horribly fatalistic, toleration for the sake of toleration. Summed up by innomen here: "Here my opponent is essentially saying, they (dictatorships) exist in places like this, get used to it and accept it." His "realism" is the unreasoned tolerance of that he KNOWS to be undesirable. He expects the USA to be complicit with Ortega because "sometimes we must deal with dictators". His reduction of the subject to simple "Realism vs. Idealism" was inaccurate.

* Fails to explain sources

And finally:

21) Mirza (3-0 to innomen)

RFD: Everything tied except arguments. The debate was incredibly close, and a very hard one to judge. My vote on arguments goes to innomen. The resolution itself is specific, but not detailed enough. What is the meaning of "recognize" and what are the effects thereof? See comment for a brief explanation.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:31:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mirza's vote (the bolded part) should be shown to all new members so as to teach them what biased voting where you make up your own reasons looks like. It should be a cautionary tale as to what not to do.

This debate was also the cause of some of current moderation policies I think - especially with the number of people that failed to justify the sources point. They probably just gave it because they wanted their vote to count for more. Whereas all the legitimate votes only awarded three points because no one felt that awarded sources or conduct was justified.

Honestly, the flaw is more with the seven-point voting system and the societal customs we developed at DDO that only 3 points should be awarded lacking extenuating circumstances. That's why the "select winner" system is such a more straightforward improvement.

As an aside, I was impressed with Chthonian pointing out the limitations in bluesteel's U of K study regarding hard support and soft support. I think innomen made several errors, one of which was not reading the study and attacking it. Another was not reframing the debate on his terms and letting bluesteel run away with the idealism vs realism argument. Yet another was having two rounds of acutal debate which gave a MASSIVE advantage to the contended because he had the last word. Those are some of the few reasons it was so lopsided. I think with someone more well-informed on debate strategy, it would have been a hell of a lot closer. I for one would have enjoyed reading bluesteel's defense of his U of K study if he had debated Chthonian for instance.

I wanted to do a "Terrible RFD of the Week" on this debate but I already have an RFD there.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:43:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Although the biggest, biggest hole in innomen's argument was the ASSUMPTION of idealism. From his opening argument, it seems like innomen had this vast knowledge and understanding of Nicarguan politics. And from there, he felt he could PROVE that Ortega was an undemocratically elected candidate. He then proceeded to make arguments outlining incontrovertible proof that Ortega rigged the election. He then thought that as long as he proved this, it subsequently proves that the US should not recognize the election. Biggest thing he missed was the link between being unconstitutional and the US not recognizing it. An argument developed in the comments where innomen argued that non-recognition doesn't mean cutting off diplomatic ties.

I think he expected his opponent to deny the unconstitutionality of Ortega's election. But bluesteel's rebuttal took a completely different direction from what innomen expected. I don't think innomen intended to debate idealism vs realism at all.

He should have framed the resolution differently. If he said, "The election of Daniel Ortega is not a real election. It was flawed, undemocratic, and unconstitutional" which is what I believe innomen intended to show, a smart debater would not have taken that topic at all.

This debate is prime example of how resolution framing can affect the entire debate. This is part of the reason it is so important to frame resolutions correctly.

Advice:

1. Unless you are an expert lawyer skilled at closing loopholes, DO NOT start an open debate. Make it a closed one and talk to potential opponents in the comments section to see where you have substantial disagreements.

2. A debate is a clash of ideas, not semantics. Being incautious with resolution framing opens you up to being Zaradi'ed.

3. To avoid being Zaradi'ed, place other limitations like disallowing Kritiks of topics and discussing the topic in forums first.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 6:03:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:31:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Mirza's vote (the bolded part) should be shown to all new members so as to teach them what biased voting where you make up your own reasons looks like. It should be a cautionary tale as to what not to do.

This debate was also the cause of some of current moderation policies I think - especially with the number of people that failed to justify the sources point. They probably just gave it because they wanted their vote to count for more. Whereas all the legitimate votes only awarded three points because no one felt that awarded sources or conduct was justified.

Honestly, the flaw is more with the seven-point voting system and the societal customs we developed at DDO that only 3 points should be awarded lacking extenuating circumstances. That's why the "select winner" system is such a more straightforward improvement.

As an aside, I was impressed with Chthonian pointing out the limitations in bluesteel's U of K study regarding hard support and soft support. I think innomen made several errors, one of which was not reading the study and attacking it. Another was not reframing the debate on his terms and letting bluesteel run away with the idealism vs realism argument. Yet another was having two rounds of acutal debate which gave a MASSIVE advantage to the contended because he had the last word. Those are some of the few reasons it was so lopsided. I think with someone more well-informed on debate strategy, it would have been a hell of a lot closer. I for one would have enjoyed reading bluesteel's defense of his U of K study if he had debated Chthonian for instance.

The study showed that both costly and weak signals increased coup chance. On page 25, it says that cheap signals have a statistically significant effect on coup chance even when controlling for more costly measures. So although the study never disaggregates the two, they did run an unpublished regression to show that the effect is not just coming from the costly signals. If cheap signals didn't work, there'd be no value in refusing to recognize the election results. It seems like the entire point of a Pro advocacy is to either (a) force Ortega to run a new, fair election, or (b) cause a coup. Since the former is never going to happen, the latter seems like the only realistic goal of endorsing Pro's position.

I wanted to do a "Terrible RFD of the Week" on this debate but I already have an RFD there.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 11:15:39 PM, YYW wrote:
This:

http://www.debate.org...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:33:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 3:53:16 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/23/2015 3:01:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The Nicaraguan debater was one of my favorites overall but if I look at it objectively, it was a bit lopsided.

I'd probably say that was one of my best performances on the site, which makes it all the more ironic to me that I lost. I was just coming off researching illberal democracies and their civil wars in depth, so I knew all the studies really well.

I remember being shocked that there were actually studies measuring that sort of thing, and it was extremely impressive how you used your evidence. I was actually inches from awarding you the sources point and all this drama would've been avoided...of course, we probably wouldn't still be talking about it if that were the case. Still, the people who gave innomen the source vote...that just made no sense, even by the standards of the time.

And looking back over it, the way I set up realism vs. idealism was a good way to frame the debate. I know I spent hours editing my arguments for that particular debate so that my word economy was spot on. I took it seriously because it was innomen. It was kind of disheartening at the time to lose that one, especially given the way it happened and the other bad votes on the debate (ah, the times prior to mods having power to remove votes).
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
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:37:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 6:03:44 AM, bluesteel wrote:

There is no realm on any planet that you lost that debate. Some debates have that
"eh" feel, where it could go both ways. That was such an objective win that it pains me to see that loss on your record lol. From 3 people alone he got like 20 points where as it took you 7 people to get that much
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 11:05:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 1:22:24 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:51:01 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
https://www.debate.org...

Bluesteel vs. Innomen on Democratization & Nicaraguan Elections
Why isn't this in the hall of fame?

Same with these...

https://www.debate.org...
Grape vs Unitedandy on the Welfare State

https://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon vs Freeman on Torture

https://www.debate.org...
Whiteflame vs Phantom on an Open Borders Policy

https://www.debate.org...
Popculturepooka vs Envisage on Religious Experiences

https://www.debate.org...
Raisor vs F16 on Nuclear ICBM forces

https://www.debate.org...
Roy vs FourTrouble on Free Trade

https://www.debate.org...
Thett3 vs BlackVoid on Conquering Africa

So I heard you're a new member.

Lolol, don't hate. :P
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 11:22:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:31:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Mirza's vote (the bolded part) should be shown to all new members so as to teach them what biased voting where you make up your own reasons looks like. It should be a cautionary tale as to what not to do.
I'm glad the one line I wrote is peculiar and special in your sight. Should I mail you a picture of myself as well, just for decoration?
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 9:53:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:21:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

I don't remember anything about this debate except that I couldn't believe how good bluesteel's evidence was.

But ya dat 1 point win lol
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 9:57:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 11:22:24 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:31:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Mirza's vote (the bolded part) should be shown to all new members so as to teach them what biased voting where you make up your own reasons looks like. It should be a cautionary tale as to what not to do.
I'm glad the one line I wrote is peculiar and special in your sight. Should I mail you a picture of myself as well, just for decoration?

That vote to you will be what my presidency is to me lolol
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 11:12:38 PM, kingkd wrote:
What do you think was the greatest debate that ever occured on this site? Please do not use this as an oppurtunity to advertise your debates.

SEX: GIRL OR BOY AND ALSO MEAN GENDER who tell me this huh??
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:37:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:21:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
These are the only votes that would have remained:

1) Phantom (3 points for innomen)

RFD: I was back and forth throughout the debate and changed my mind every round except the last round. Both debaters started out strong. Pro started by showing that Daniel Ortega clearly violated Nicaraguan law. Con could not really refute this. All he could do was argue that this was not a legitimate reason to follow pros resolution. Con made the argument that we would no longer be able to deal with Nicaragua if we did not recognize the results. Pro successfully refuted that by pointing out that Ortega hates the United States so we would not lose much diplomacy. One of cons stronger points was that cutting ties with Ortega would result in forcing him to become closer with Hugo Chavez. Pro could only partially refutes this by pointing out that Chavez is expected to live for only another two years. Pro supports his arguments by showing seven other countries that do not recognize the election. Con argues that Nicaragua was a illiberal democracy, and so it should not surprise us that voter fraud went on. However this does not fully address pros arguments and the AMOUNT of voter fraud that went on. Con points out Ortega's approval ratings, however we can't be sure these are accurate. Pro narrowly won in my opinion.

* This was a good one and probably the one vote for innomen that was actually good enough.

2) thett3 (3 points for bluesteel)

RFD in comments

3) SocialPinko (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD: This was a close debate. The part that pushed me towards Con though was the study showing that refusal by America to recognize a regime made a coup much more likely. Pro's response that a coup is not what he is specifically advocating ignored the fact that it is likely to happen if the U.S. refuses to recognize the results, whether that was what he had supported or not. Everything else was tied. Great debate by both.

4) F-16 (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

5) Maikuru (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD: Conduct and grammar were appropriate from both parties. Sources were also used well by both sides and weren't deciding factors. If the crux of this debate is "What does the US gain by not recognizing the election results," Con comes out on top. The US may gain some moral standing but it harms itself and Nicaragua (economically and, as an extension, its citizens) in the process. Pro didn't persuade me as to why this trade-off was worth it.

6) Chthonian (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

7) Raisor (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD: I could almost cast my vote on the coup issue alone. Innomen never addressed this and bluesteel provides super specific evidence. Same goes for the "too poor for democracy" issue. Bluesteel just provides a very solid case that goes unrefuted on most fronts. Innomen you did a decent job. You just need some strong arguments/evidence in support of foreign policy that backs democracies.

8) Danielle (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

9) BlackVoid (3 points to bluesteel)

RFD in comments

10) Marauder (3 points to bluesteel)

This was a really good debate on both parts. Things Con did not address: the example of Costa Rica's success, and the anticipated death of Hugo Chavez in 2 years effects Things Pro did not adress effectively: the studies that a coup would form if we did what he asks, effects of conditional aid, and he did not argue strongly enough just what he did want to happen exactly. Con gave a load of cause and effects and Pro only took a position on those effects he did not exactly argue they wouldn't oc

11) GreyParrot (0-0 tie)

RFD: I can't make up my mind.

* I guess this is legitimate since he didn't award any points so nothing to explain.

9 for blue, 1 for innomen, 1 tie. Score: 27-3


These votes would have been removed:

12) imabench (5 points for bluesteel)

RFD: Con had a good argument about how futile it was and how basically we can only accept it or act like its not there and showed the consequences of both. Sounded convincing even though i think this leader is a prick and agree with the pro

* Didn't explain sources point. Insufficient explanation for arguments

13) DanT (4 points for innomen)

RFD: Overall better argument, regarding foreign affairs.

* Fail on every level.

14) 16kadams (5-1 to innomen)

RFD: In my eyes con never addressd the issue of the constitutional problems. So since that is probably the biggest part of the debate, well the best argument for pro then he wins. Con never addressed it really. Sorry to change my vote, but I looked over the scources and innomen gets that, I will give grammar to con though after this re-read

* No explanation for sources or grammar

15) RoyLatham (5 points to bluesteel)

A very good debate. There was agreement that Ortega is a dictator who seized power. So the question is whether accepting the fact of his control of the country is better for the US. Con's broad argument in favor of "realism" was not totally convincing, but Pro didn't point out the many exceptions that have been made depending upon circumstances. I think Con barely made the case that engagement would be better in this case, based upon te advantages of interacting.

* Failure to explain sources point.

16) Ore_Ele (5 points to innomen)

RFD: I have to vote for Innomen on this because it was brought up in the comments prior to Bluesteel accepting this debate, that this was about recognizing Ortega as the democratically elected leader, rather than just the leader (see comments 2 and 3). "OreEle, it would have to be the democratically elected leader." As such, arguments that don't focus on that are not relavent.

* Failure to explain sources, uses arguments from outside the debate

17) Buckethead (4-2 to innomen)

RFD: I agree with 16kadams. Pro's arguments seemed a little more convincing.

* piggybacking, lack of explanation for arguments point.

18) Gileandos (7-0 to innomen)

RFD: Adjusting my vote to counter Mirza's vote bomb.

* Votebomb

19) ApostateAbe (6-1 to innomen)

RFD: I am sympathetic to realpolitik, and the reasoning of innomen seemed to have the upper hand from even that perspective. I did not like Con's argument relating to the supreme court of Nicaragua. Bush v. Gore was not a fitting comparison. The court was not illegally stuffed for the Bush v. Gore decision. I gave Pro the point for spelling, because Con's "Lol," kinda rubbed me the wrong way, but upon review he did have better English than Pro.

* Fails to explains sources, personal bias to some extent but mostly lack of explanation for sources


My vote was total sh!t, but I think judging these votes with modern standards is kinds silly. These votes back then, for the most part, were acceptable. Voting standards are a lot higher--which is good, but also bad because some people vote less. I do agree that blue should have won.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross