Total Posts:208|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Genghis Khan's dreadful vote

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 10:52:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
This is not a personal attack against Genghis Khan (unlike his posts against me). Rather, it is a critique of his, what I believe, poor vote on my debate. I won"t psychoanalyse for intentions, but I will demonstrate how dreadful this vote was. The debate can be found here:

http://www.debate.org...

All arguments which give the opponent (FourTrouble) arguments he did not make, are underlined. These infractions are particularly egregious, due to these being objectively wrong.


"The two most important clashes in the debate were overmatching and diversity, so I'll go over those first."


This is already wrong. The contention on women, of which the opponent objectively dropped, was easily my best contention, yet Genghis has unfairly decided to ignore that. I showed how women are treated better than men, due to nonsense such as the supposed gender wage-gap. Not a great start to the vote.

i. Over-Matching

"His explanation of this concept [AA minorities being pushed to improve, and therefore ultimately succeed] is a very reasonable and persuasive one, and it's further strengthened by (1) evidence that the vast majority of AA-beneficiaries say they've benefited from the experience, and (2) the fact that minorities' lower academic credentials often don't stem from an inherent lack of ability, but are instead a circumstantial result of their disadvantaged upbringings (e.g. "lack of caring parents, attentive teachers, a decent neighborhood, or test-prep courses"). Zarro does not contest the first point much at all, and counters the second point with something about the white-black IQ differential, which is incredibly unpersuasive in comparison."

The racial I.Q. gap I proposed countered the idea that culture and external circumstances are the only factors in minority"s poor academic performance. Genghis ignores this by writing a bare assertion, of which is a logical fallacy, "[my argument] is incredibly unpersuasive in comparison". There is no mention of why this is the case, only his unsupported opinion is given to dismiss my couner-argument.

"Meanwhile, Zarro argues that overmatching is bad because beneficiaries tend to flunk out or do very poorly, but her evidence simply isn't as compelling as FT's. The stat which her entire argument is riding upon is the one showing that "minority students were exceedingly representative of the bottom ten percent of the class - only one in four passed". FT's response to this wasn't that compelling (it was basically just "diversity outweighs"), but at the same time, the stat is based in data from a single university's law school -- so it's not a very good sample size."

This is the first instance of Genghis making arguments for the opponent wherein the opponent did not make these arguments. The sample-size was *never* contested by my opponent, and Genghis even admits that the opponent"s rebuttal "wasn"t that compelling". So, if the opponent"s rebuttal wasn"t that compelling, how is it that Genghis believes that it counters my argument?

ii. Diversity

""and her attempts at distinguishing "cultural diversity" from "racial diversity" are just objectively wrong."

Firstly, this argument was never made by the opponent, so once again, Genghis is unfairly giving the opponent arguments. Secondly, we are on the contention of *racial* affirmative action, and hence *racial diversity* " no distinguishing is required, and if we were to distinguish, then the opponent wouldn"t be arguing for *racial affirmative action*, and hence would not be affirming the resolution. Clearly, Genghis has blundered twice, on this part of his vote.


"Zarro provides two studies in addition to her attempt at laughing off FT's evidence."


In regards to "laughing" (as if one can laugh through text), here is why I "laughed":

The opponent"s first evidence suggested that having different races leads having more races leads to better problem solving skills. Sorry, but this is ridiculous, because not only is there not an explanation of how *race* affects problem-solving skills, but the notion that an increased number of differing skin colours helps with problem solving, in prima facie ridiculous. Genghis obviously misinterprets the contention, thinking that the resolution pertains to affirmative action for *culture*, when the debate is about affirmative action for *race*.

The second "evidence" was merely someone "not[ing]" something. That"s it " not even close to providing anything but an appeal to authority.

"FT turned the first one against her by showing how Putnam's actual conclusion was that the long-term benefits of diversity are still beneficial. In response, Zarro just asserts that he's wrong, but seeing that FT's source is accessible and hers isn't, I'm going to trust FT more on this one."

Putnam"s conclusions don"t agree with his own data. How is that "assert[ing] that he"s wrong?" I"ve given a reason why it"s wrong. You can access the opponent"s source to see how it contradicts.

"FT's response to the Rushton study wasn't compelling, but it's a completely theoretical work, based on Zarro's explanation of it, and as a general rule, empirical studies take precedence. I am led to believe that diversity is generally a boon to society."

Again, Genghis gives the opponent arguments, in that a criticism of "a completely theoretical work" was never made by my opponent, not to mention that the opponent nor Genghis never gave a reason why this is the case. Furthermore, Rushton"s work had empirical evidence, so Genghis" point here is votebomb-esque.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 10:54:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
iii. Misc. Points

"Zarro talked a lot about how "reparatory justice" is unjust because it's reverse racism, but that completely misses the point, and FT correctly explained why. AA has no racist intentions associated with it -- it's core idea is that society's collective welfare is more important than individual welfare, so a couple sacrifices on the part of "privileged" individuals can be justified by the overall benefit to the socioeconomic status of minority groups"

In a society where there is a limited resource (i.e. university admittance), giving preference to minorities necessitates that non-minorities will miss-out, hence the racism.

"As for aggregate economic costs, I'm definitely buying into FT's rebuttal. He points out a variety of problems with her sources which essentially discredit it -- being from a time when AA policies weren't as good (e.g. quotas),"

The opponent merely asserts this, during the debate; this is hardly an argument to "buy".

"failing to account for the benefits of diversity,"

Circular reasoning " this is one of the contentions of the debate.

"and the lack of supporting data to quantify the alleged opportunity costs (and no, posting a link to the data in the final round doesn't cut it)."

The hypocrisy of this vote is shown here. The opponent was allowed to reference Putnam in the final round, yet my source "doesn"t cut it". Obviously, this is blatantly unfair.

"Zarro asserts that her economic argument was "ultimately uncontested", even though FT spent an entire section of his round on it..."

He asserted that the methodology was wrong, when upon a control+f search, found that his claims of the methodology didn"t even exist " he is outright lying about my source. This is why I claimed that my source was ultimately uncontested.

"I actually think Zarro did a pretty good job of rebutting the "gender wage gap" point, and while I'm skeptical about Zarro's argument regarding women, I'm generally buying that affirmative action policies which target women are unnecessary, and therefore undesirable."

The opponent *DROPPED* this contention entirely, and yet I"ve only done a "pretty good job?" Sorry, but talk about an unfairly difficult audience to satisfy.

"However, I'm not sure what to do with this information -- neither side ever tells me what proportion of affirmative action policies are targeted at women, so it doesn't really have any impact on the resolution, which contains an "on balance" clause. And on top of that, the majority of FT's case concentrates on racial minorities, so ultimately, this carries very limited weight in my decision."

Once again, Genghis" vote is hypocritical. Never mentioned is the amount of minorities affected by affirmative action (it"s never referenced), yet when I present the same line of argument, I haven"t provided enough data. Hypocritical. I find it interesting that a contention I have won by a landslide "carries very limited weight".

"I also agree that FT missed the mark in responding to the stuff about racial tension -- just because white people are stupid for feeling cheated doesn't mean they don't still feel cheated. However, Zarro did not successfully translate this point into a significant impact. How much would AA directly increase racial tensions? There's no evidence of any causal relationship between AA and her racial violence examples. So again, I'm not able to grant this much weight in my decision. Zarro should look into Thomas Sowell's work on the stigma effect which results from AA policies."

Is it hard to imagine that the racial tension I have shown leads to racial violence? Is Genghis suggesting that racial tension has never lead to racial violence?

"Also, look up your big words before using them. It just makes you come off as a pretentious dumb@ss when you use 'em wrong."

Genghis ends by insulting me, and also provides no examples or evidence that I am using "big words" incorrectly. I urge you to consider how impartial Genghis has been.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:06:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 10:52:17 PM, Zarroette wrote:
This is not a personal attack against Genghis Khan (unlike his posts against me). Rather, it is a critique of his, what I believe, poor vote on my debate. I won"t psychoanalyse for intentions, but I will demonstrate how dreadful this vote was. The debate can be found here:

http://www.debate.org...

All arguments which give the opponent (FourTrouble) arguments he did not make, are underlined. These infractions are particularly egregious, due to these being objectively wrong.


"The two most important clashes in the debate were overmatching and diversity, so I'll go over those first."


This is already wrong. The contention on women, of which the opponent objectively dropped, was easily my best contention, yet Genghis has unfairly decided to ignore that. I showed how women are treated better than men, due to nonsense such as the supposed gender wage-gap. Not a great start to the vote.


i. Over-Matching

"His explanation of this concept [AA minorities being pushed to improve, and therefore ultimately succeed] is a very reasonable and persuasive one, and it's further strengthened by (1) evidence that the vast majority of AA-beneficiaries say they've benefited from the experience, and (2) the fact that minorities' lower academic credentials often don't stem from an inherent lack of ability, but are instead a circumstantial result of their disadvantaged upbringings (e.g. "lack of caring parents, attentive teachers, a decent neighborhood, or test-prep courses"). Zarro does not contest the first point much at all, and counters the second point with something about the white-black IQ differential, which is incredibly unpersuasive in comparison."

The racial I.Q. gap I proposed countered the idea that culture and external circumstances are the only factors in minority"s poor academic performance. Genghis ignores this by writing a bare assertion, of which is a logical fallacy, "[my argument] is incredibly unpersuasive in comparison". There is no mention of why this is the case, only his unsupported opinion is given to dismiss my couner-argument.


"Meanwhile, Zarro argues that overmatching is bad because beneficiaries tend to flunk out or do very poorly, but her evidence simply isn't as compelling as FT's. The stat which her entire argument is riding upon is the one showing that "minority students were exceedingly representative of the bottom ten percent of the class - only one in four passed". FT's response to this wasn't that compelling (it was basically just "diversity outweighs"), but at the same time, the stat is based in data from a single university's law school -- so it's not a very good sample size."

This is the first instance of Genghis making arguments for the opponent wherein the opponent did not make these arguments. The sample-size was *never* contested by my opponent, and Genghis even admits that the opponent"s rebuttal "wasn"t that compelling". So, if the opponent"s rebuttal wasn"t that compelling, how is it that Genghis believes that it counters my argument?


ii. Diversity

""and her attempts at distinguishing "cultural diversity" from "racial diversity" are just objectively wrong."

Firstly, this argument was never made by the opponent, so once again, Genghis is unfairly giving the opponent arguments. Secondly, we are on the contention of *racial* affirmative action, and hence *racial diversity* " no distinguishing is required, and if we were to distinguish, then the opponent wouldn"t be arguing for *racial affirmative action*, and hence would not be affirming the resolution. Clearly, Genghis has blundered twice, on this part of his vote.


"Zarro provides two studies in addition to her attempt at laughing off FT's evidence."


In regards to "laughing" (as if one can laugh through text), here is why I "laughed":

The opponent"s first evidence suggested that having different races leads having more races leads to better problem solving skills. Sorry, but this is ridiculous, because not only is there not an explanation of how *race* affects problem-solving skills, but the notion that an increased number of differing skin colours helps with problem solving, in prima facie ridiculous. Genghis obviously misinterprets the contention, thinking that the resolution pertains to affirmative action for *culture*, when the debate is about affirmative action for *race*.

The second "evidence" was merely someone "not[ing]" something. That"s it " not even close to providing anything but an appeal to authority.


"FT turned the first one against her by showing how Putnam's actual conclusion was that the long-term benefits of diversity are still beneficial. In response, Zarro just asserts that he's wrong, but seeing that FT's source is accessible and hers isn't, I'm going to trust FT more on this one."

Putnam"s conclusions don"t agree with his own data. How is that "assert[ing] that he"s wrong?" I"ve given a reason why it"s wrong. You can access the opponent"s source to see how it contradicts.


"FT's response to the Rushton study wasn't compelling, but it's a completely theoretical work, based on Zarro's explanation of it, and as a general rule, empirical studies take precedence. I am led to believe that diversity is generally a boon to society."

Again, Genghis gives the opponent arguments, in that a criticism of "a completely theoretical work" was never made by my opponent, not to mention that the opponent nor Genghis never gave a reason why this is the case. Furthermore, Rushton"s work had empirical evidence, so Genghis" point here is votebomb-esque.

Pretty sure thats romani
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:10:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:06:31 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/23/2015 10:52:17 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Pretty sure thats romani
She was already made aware of that.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:17:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Was is necessary to post this in the DDO forum? By doing so, despite your intention, you are making a personal attack against him. We have people on this site who deal with bad votes (e.g. Whiteflame).
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:17:06 PM, Subutai wrote:
Was is necessary to post this in the DDO forum? By doing so, despite your intention, you are making a personal attack against him. We have people on this site who deal with bad votes (e.g. Whiteflame).

I don't agree that this is a personal attack. The title clearly reads "Genghis Khan's dreadful vote", rather than "Genghis Khan is a dreadful voter".

Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:23:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Im tempted to vote on the debate now just to see if you make a thread for me now ;)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive. However, in the case of this debate, they weren't difficult judgments to make at all. For example, take the clash over why minorities tend to have lower academic credentials -- literally anyone would agree that disadvantaged upbringings is a more compelling explanation than the IQ differential. Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.
anything your heart desires
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:47:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:17:06 PM, Subutai wrote:
Was is necessary to post this in the DDO forum? By doing so, despite your intention, you are making a personal attack against him. We have people on this site who deal with bad votes (e.g. Whiteflame).

I don't agree that this is a personal attack. The title clearly reads "Genghis Khan's dreadful vote", rather than "Genghis Khan is a dreadful voter".


But you're making it public when there are more private alternatives that would be more beneficial to both of you.
Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.

And the vote moderation team wasn't enough? Do you have to broadcast your feelings about everything to the whole site?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:48:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.

Comment section would have sufficed. Whatever, though. This is more hilarious.
anything your heart desires
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:49:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:48:46 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.

Comment section would have sufficed. Whatever, though. This is more hilarious.

https://www.google.ca...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:52:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

I have outlined my objections to your RFD here. Please address them, or else admit that your vote was dreadful.


You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive.

"Judgement", in this case, appears to be personal bias.

However, in the case of this debate, they weren't difficult judgments to make at all. For example, take the clash over why minorities tend to have lower academic credentials -- literally anyone would agree that disadvantaged upbringings is a more compelling explanation than the IQ differential.

You've claimed this, again, with a bare assertion. You see, Romanii, merely stating is not sufficient for refutation. You must back your claims with facts.

Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.

Where did the opponent make this claim in the debate, let alone defend it? Once again, you've giving the opponent arguments that he did not make, and inadvertently proving how poor your vote is.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:56:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:47:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:17:06 PM, Subutai wrote:
Was is necessary to post this in the DDO forum? By doing so, despite your intention, you are making a personal attack against him. We have people on this site who deal with bad votes (e.g. Whiteflame).

I don't agree that this is a personal attack. The title clearly reads "Genghis Khan's dreadful vote", rather than "Genghis Khan is a dreadful voter".


But you're making it public when there are more private alternatives that would be more beneficial to both of you.

I don't agree. I have been personally attacked by Genghis and he refuses to partake in substantial conversation. In absence of the potential for private amelioration, public demonstration of poor voting is the next best option, due to other people being capable of seeing the error of the vote, and thus confirming that I'm not merely "hot-headed" and "daft".

Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.

And the vote moderation team wasn't enough? Do you have to broadcast your feelings about everything to the whole site?

That is a loaded question, as my intention was to demonstrate was Genghis' vote is incorrect, rather than merely "broadcast my feelings".
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:58:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:56:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:47:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:17:06 PM, Subutai wrote:
Was is necessary to post this in the DDO forum? By doing so, despite your intention, you are making a personal attack against him. We have people on this site who deal with bad votes (e.g. Whiteflame).

I don't agree that this is a personal attack. The title clearly reads "Genghis Khan's dreadful vote", rather than "Genghis Khan is a dreadful voter".


But you're making it public when there are more private alternatives that would be more beneficial to both of you.

I don't agree. I have been personally attacked by Genghis and he refuses to partake in substantial conversation. In absence of the potential for private amelioration, public demonstration of poor voting is the next best option, due to other people being capable of seeing the error of the vote, and thus confirming that I'm not merely "hot-headed" and "daft".


Even if he were attacking you (which, from what I've seen, he's not), that's still not an excuse to make a thread about it. Again, that's what the moderation is for. I feel like the moderation would be a much better judge of whether or not you were being "hot-headed" or "daft".
Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.

And the vote moderation team wasn't enough? Do you have to broadcast your feelings about everything to the whole site?

That is a loaded question, as my intention was to demonstrate was Genghis' vote is incorrect, rather than merely "broadcast my feelings".

Broadcasting your feelings is what this whole thread is about.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:03:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:58:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:56:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:47:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:19:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:17:06 PM, Subutai wrote:
Was is necessary to post this in the DDO forum? By doing so, despite your intention, you are making a personal attack against him. We have people on this site who deal with bad votes (e.g. Whiteflame).

I don't agree that this is a personal attack. The title clearly reads "Genghis Khan's dreadful vote", rather than "Genghis Khan is a dreadful voter".


But you're making it public when there are more private alternatives that would be more beneficial to both of you.

I don't agree. I have been personally attacked by Genghis and he refuses to partake in substantial conversation. In absence of the potential for private amelioration, public demonstration of poor voting is the next best option, due to other people being capable of seeing the error of the vote, and thus confirming that I'm not merely "hot-headed" and "daft".


Even if he were attacking you (which, from what I've seen, he's not), that's still not an excuse to make a thread about it. Again, that's what the moderation is for. I feel like the moderation would be a much better judge of whether or not you were being "hot-headed" or "daft".

Evidence of personal attacks: http://www.debate.org...

Furthermore, I needed a place to demonstrate that his vote is objectively wrong.

And the vote moderation team wasn't enough? Do you have to broadcast your feelings about everything to the whole site?

That is a loaded question, as my intention was to demonstrate was Genghis' vote is incorrect, rather than merely "broadcast my feelings".

Broadcasting your feelings is what this whole thread is about.

You're repeating your argument, despite my response.

Due to this repetition, I think that it is best, in order to avoid a flamewar, that we agree to disagree. If you would like to directly address my critique of his vote, then I will happily respond. However, as this back-and-forth transpires, I suspect a flamewar will eventuate, so I am terminating this conversation.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:03:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
*sigh* I'll see if I can't get a vote on it tonight or tomorrow before all the family stuff for Christmas.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:04:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
http://2new2.fjcdn.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:08:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:52:34 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

I have outlined my objections to your RFD here. Please address them, or else admit that your vote was dreadful.

My vote was fine. Your reaction to it is hilariously stupid. The issues you've brought up are so incredibly petty, too. A simple "I disagree with your judgement on several of the clashes" would have sufficed.



You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive.

"Judgement", in this case, appears to be personal bias.

No sh!t


However, in the case of this debate, they weren't difficult judgments to make at all. For example, take the clash over why minorities tend to have lower academic credentials -- literally anyone would agree that disadvantaged upbringings is a more compelling explanation than the IQ differential.

You've claimed this, again, with a bare assertion. You see, Romanii, merely stating is not sufficient for refutation. You must back your claims with facts.

Lmao. It's not possible to objectively validate a subjective judgment, bud. That's why it's better to have multiple voters on a debate -- so that the outcome is more likely to be objective via intersubjective consensus. Getting multiple opinions from intelligent people is the only way to demonstrate that FT's explanation was objectively more compelling.


Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.

Where did the opponent make this claim in the debate, let alone defend it? Once again, you've giving the opponent arguments that he did not make, and inadvertently proving how poor your vote is.

Did you demonstrate that "disadvantaged upbringings" was NOT a good explanation? No, you didn't. If you had, I would have preferred your explanation. I'm just connecting the dots myself where neither of you did. There's nothing unfair about that.
anything your heart desires
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:10:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:56:10 PM, Zarroette wrote:

public demonstration of poor voting is the next best option, due to other people being capable of seeing the error of the vote, and thus confirming that I'm not merely "hot-headed" and "daft".

Actually, this thread is confirming precisely the opposite.
anything your heart desires
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:14:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 12:08:23 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:52:34 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

I have outlined my objections to your RFD here. Please address them, or else admit that your vote was dreadful.

My vote was fine. Your reaction to it is hilariously stupid. The issues you've brought up are so incredibly petty, too. A simple "I disagree with your judgement on several of the clashes" would have sufficed.

Once again, you have offered nothing but a bare assertion for your claims. My objections are far more nuanced than what you claim, too.




You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive.

"Judgement", in this case, appears to be personal bias.

No sh!t

This is a transgression upon voting standards -- you have openly admitted that you voted poorly.



However, in the case of this debate, they weren't difficult judgments to make at all. For example, take the clash over why minorities tend to have lower academic credentials -- literally anyone would agree that disadvantaged upbringings is a more compelling explanation than the IQ differential.

You've claimed this, again, with a bare assertion. You see, Romanii, merely stating is not sufficient for refutation. You must back your claims with facts.

Lmao. It's not possible to objectively validate a subjective judgment, bud. That's why it's better to have multiple voters on a debate -- so that the outcome is more likely to be objective via intersubjective consensus. Getting multiple opinions from intelligent people is the only way to demonstrate that FT's explanation was objectively more compelling.

Again, you have openly admitted that your vote spawned from personal bias.



Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.

Where did the opponent make this claim in the debate, let alone defend it? Once again, you've giving the opponent arguments that he did not make, and inadvertently proving how poor your vote is.

Did you demonstrate that "disadvantaged upbringings" was NOT a good explanation? No, you didn't. If you had, I would have preferred your explanation. I'm just connecting the dots myself where neither of you did. There's nothing unfair about that.

Don't change the subject, please: where did the opponent make that claim? Answer: he didn't -- you gave him that argument.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 1:01:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 12:14:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/24/2015 12:08:23 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:52:34 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

I have outlined my objections to your RFD here. Please address them, or else admit that your vote was dreadful.

My vote was fine. Your reaction to it is hilariously stupid. The issues you've brought up are so incredibly petty, too. A simple "I disagree with your judgement on several of the clashes" would have sufficed.

Once again, you have offered nothing but a bare assertion for your claims. My objections are far more nuanced than what you claim, too.

No, they literally all just boil down to you subjectively disagreeing with my judgment on the parts of my RFD that were necessarily subjective.





You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive.

"Judgement", in this case, appears to be personal bias.

No sh!t

This is a transgression upon voting standards -- you have openly admitted that you voted poorly.



However, in the case of this debate, they weren't difficult judgments to make at all. For example, take the clash over why minorities tend to have lower academic credentials -- literally anyone would agree that disadvantaged upbringings is a more compelling explanation than the IQ differential.

You've claimed this, again, with a bare assertion. You see, Romanii, merely stating is not sufficient for refutation. You must back your claims with facts.

Lmao. It's not possible to objectively validate a subjective judgment, bud. That's why it's better to have multiple voters on a debate -- so that the outcome is more likely to be objective via intersubjective consensus. Getting multiple opinions from intelligent people is the only way to demonstrate that FT's explanation was objectively more compelling.

Again, you have openly admitted that your vote spawned from personal bias.

What the fvck? Are you under the impression that voting can be entirely objective?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it can't. Tabula rasa voting is a myth. Ask whiteflame. Ask YYW. Ask thett3. Ask F16. Ask bluesteel. Ask *anyone* who you think is a good voter. Looks like your objection to my vote comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of voting in general.




Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.

Where did the opponent make this claim in the debate, let alone defend it? Once again, you've giving the opponent arguments that he did not make, and inadvertently proving how poor your vote is.

Did you demonstrate that "disadvantaged upbringings" was NOT a good explanation? No, you didn't. If you had, I would have preferred your explanation. I'm just connecting the dots myself where neither of you did. There's nothing unfair about that.

Don't change the subject, please: where did the opponent make that claim? Answer: he didn't -- you gave him that argument.

Wow, so I guess you're not comprehending this at all. Let me try again. Both of your explanations were equally viable, but neither of you gave me a reason to prefer yours. So I used my subjective judgment to decide on my own. That's part of voting, dude.

Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself any further.
anything your heart desires
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 1:46:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 1:01:22 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 12/24/2015 12:14:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/24/2015 12:08:23 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:52:34 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

I have outlined my objections to your RFD here. Please address them, or else admit that your vote was dreadful.

My vote was fine. Your reaction to it is hilariously stupid. The issues you've brought up are so incredibly petty, too. A simple "I disagree with your judgement on several of the clashes" would have sufficed.

Once again, you have offered nothing but a bare assertion for your claims. My objections are far more nuanced than what you claim, too.

No, they literally all just boil down to you subjectively disagreeing with my judgment on the parts of my RFD that were necessarily subjective.





You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive.

"Judgement", in this case, appears to be personal bias.

No sh!t

This is a transgression upon voting standards -- you have openly admitted that you voted poorly.



However, in the case of this debate, they weren't difficult judgments to make at all. For example, take the clash over why minorities tend to have lower academic credentials -- literally anyone would agree that disadvantaged upbringings is a more compelling explanation than the IQ differential.

You've claimed this, again, with a bare assertion. You see, Romanii, merely stating is not sufficient for refutation. You must back your claims with facts.

Lmao. It's not possible to objectively validate a subjective judgment, bud. That's why it's better to have multiple voters on a debate -- so that the outcome is more likely to be objective via intersubjective consensus. Getting multiple opinions from intelligent people is the only way to demonstrate that FT's explanation was objectively more compelling.

Again, you have openly admitted that your vote spawned from personal bias.

What the fvck? Are you under the impression that voting can be entirely objective?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it can't. Tabula rasa voting is a myth. Ask whiteflame. Ask YYW. Ask thett3. Ask F16. Ask bluesteel. Ask *anyone* who you think is a good voter. Looks like your objection to my vote comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of voting in general.




Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.

Where did the opponent make this claim in the debate, let alone defend it? Once again, you've giving the opponent arguments that he did not make, and inadvertently proving how poor your vote is.

Did you demonstrate that "disadvantaged upbringings" was NOT a good explanation? No, you didn't. If you had, I would have preferred your explanation. I'm just connecting the dots myself where neither of you did. There's nothing unfair about that.

Don't change the subject, please: where did the opponent make that claim? Answer: he didn't -- you gave him that argument.

Wow, so I guess you're not comprehending this at all. Let me try again. Both of your explanations were equally viable, but neither of you gave me a reason to prefer yours. So I used my subjective judgment to decide on my own. That's part of voting, dude.

Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself any further.

Your subjective interpretation was provided in spite of my counter-arguments. Please, address my original critique or else stop derailing my thread with digressions and insults.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 1:58:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 1:46:40 AM, Zarroette wrote:

Your subjective interpretation was provided in spite of my counter-arguments. Please, address my original critique or else stop derailing my thread ith digressions and insults.

No. I only utilized subjective judgment where it was needed -- the clashes where neither of you did all the work necessary for me to objectively decide who won. Most of your criticisms are defeated simply by recognizing that fact. The others are self-evidently dumb.
anything your heart desires
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 1:59:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:45:15 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
Oh god, you've got to be kidding me XD

Screw that. Debate me on it.

"Romanii's RFD on Zarroette's debate with FourTrouble was dreadful"

You obviously don't understand what "judging a debate" means. Like I've already said, when the debaters themselves fail to connect the dots for me, I have to do it myself in order to arrive at a decision. In other words -- when the debate is over, if I have two lines of evidence that blatantly contradict each other, and neither debater provides a good reason to prefer theirs, then I have no choice but to use my own judgment to decide which one is more persuasive.
... No, you don't. That's called a tie.
Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. The latter simply isn't consistent with reality, because IQ has been widely discredited as a consistent predictor of academic achievement.

That must be justified in the debate itself. You can't just vote on debates based on what is "consistent with reality."
"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
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 2:04:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
It's not even controversial that one should never vote for the side that they agree with just for the fact that they agree with it. That's, like, the first rule of voting.
"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