Total Posts:2,486|Showing Posts:751-780|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Post Unvoted, Forfeited & Vote Bombed Debates

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 5:51:18 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart has voted on her own debate via an alt.

the alt (look at the three debates to qualify)
http://www.debate.org...

the vote
http://www.debate.org...

She accused wrichcirw of votebombing, when actually he provided a comprehensive RFD. No takers. So she's decided to vote herself.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 5:54:18 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Sorry. Forgot to bold it.

The_Chaos_Heart has voted on her own debate via an alt.

the alt (look at the three debates to qualify)
http://www.debate.org......

the vote
http://www.debate.org......

She accused wrichcirw of votebombing, when actually he provided a comprehensive RFD.

The_Chaos_Heart voted for herself.
Bull_Diesel
Posts: 1,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 9:56:12 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/5/2013 5:54:18 AM, rross wrote:
Sorry. Forgot to bold it.

The_Chaos_Heart has voted on her own debate via an alt.

the alt (look at the three debates to qualify)
http://www.debate.org......

the vote
http://www.debate.org......

She accused wrichcirw of votebombing, when actually he provided a comprehensive RFD.

The_Chaos_Heart voted for herself.

If you look I think both of them might be alts, they had two 1 round debates against each other that were obvious BS just in time to vote on her own debate with rross.

I'd say big time party foul on The Chaos Heart
DudeWithoutTheE
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 10:58:58 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/4/2013 8:26:47 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
In fact, looking what this site defines votebombing as, I am certain this fits the case. So...

Vote Bomb. Wrichcirw.

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

Having read this debate, it is clear that wrichcirw did not votebomb. He provided a detailed RFD and has defended it over multiple posts in the comments section. At the very least, someone needs to counter the 'CVB' by Dark_Armageddon.

If it is true that D_A is an alt of the Chaos Heart, then this is major misconduct and PRO should be granted a seven-point victory.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 11:02:48 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
http://debate.org...

unvoted
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 11:04:52 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/5/2013 10:58:58 AM, DudeWithoutTheE wrote:
At 1/4/2013 8:26:47 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
In fact, looking what this site defines votebombing as, I am certain this fits the case. So...

Vote Bomb. Wrichcirw.

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

Having read this debate, it is clear that wrichcirw did not votebomb. He provided a detailed RFD and has defended it over multiple posts in the comments section. At the very least, someone needs to counter the 'CVB' by Dark_Armageddon.

If it is true that D_A is an alt of the Chaos Heart, then this is major misconduct and PRO should be granted a seven-point victory.

Got It
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 2:35:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/5/2013 9:56:12 AM, Bull_Diesel wrote:
At 1/5/2013 5:54:18 AM, rross wrote:
Sorry. Forgot to bold it.

The_Chaos_Heart has voted on her own debate via an alt.

the alt (look at the three debates to qualify)
http://www.debate.org......

the vote
http://www.debate.org......

She accused wrichcirw of votebombing, when actually he provided a comprehensive RFD.

The_Chaos_Heart voted for herself.

If you look I think both of them might be alts, they had two 1 round debates against each other that were obvious BS just in time to vote on her own debate with rross.

I'd say big time party foul on The Chaos Heart

I did not create this account, and it is not my "alt" account. I would never do such a thing. Check it if you wish. It is not mine.

Further more, one person saying "I don't think it is a vote bomb" is hardly "the forum" coming to such a conclusion. He provided a detailed RDF, but read through it. Many of the things criticiszed were not true. And on top of that, he went back and altered his vote based on my conversation with him after the debate in the comments. At the VERY least, his grammar vote was unjust, as he made based on things that didn't happen in the debate.

This is the exact defintion of what this sight considers a vote bomb.

Quote.

"1.3 Vote bombing. Abuse of DDO voting privileges by awarding points to a debater for reasons unrelated to the arguments or evidence presented in the debate."

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

It is RIDICULOUS that this person can get away with this. You cannot "determine" that the individual in question did not cast an unjust vote, when he did exactly what was in the quote.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 2:56:42 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"4) PRO: "But my opponent is implying that the reason for all the male presidents is A. That people genuinely prefer a male president. That even though the majority of voters are women, they feel that a man best represents their interests. And that, if this is the case, it is wrong to say that a woman should be president." Compelling argument"

This wasn't a compelling argument. It was putting words in my mouth, which I pointed out, and my opponent did not contest. Ergo, she dropped the argument.

"7) Keke2002's debate is paramount to this one, because in round #1, CON stated "The debate is the same as before...""

No, it is not, Lele's debate was entirely irrelevant outside of me explaining why I had made THIS debate. That's it. It was not a tool to try and attack me with during the debate as my opponent tried to.

"8) CON: "'Need' is very different from 'want'". However, needs are also wants. Wants are not needs. Therefore, PRO's usage of the word "should" is valid, and I agree that Keke2002 also argued the same position."

Needs are not wants. Someone can need something without wanting it. For instance, people addicted to drugs. They may need to get off the drug for their own wellbeing, but they don't want to.

"9) CON: "Capability to become president does not mean one WILL become president." Irrelevant. You are debating SHOULD, not WILL."

I know that. It was my OPPONENT who was arguing "will", not me.

"10) CON: ""women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president"." This is a false dichotomy."

This is not a false dichotomy, as I was not proposing these are the only two possible things one can ay. I was showing how these were things one could say IN ADDITION. I was showing how there were more than two choices.

"12) PRO: "The chance of the next 44 Presidents being male is less than one in a trillion (0.5^44)." I was thinking this same thing..."

But that's blatantly not true. It is a mathematical impossibility, because the ratio of male vs. female candidates is not .5. I explained this. This statement is false.

"13) CON: " the wording should be a "desirable or expected state"...she still needs to provide explanation for WHY this is a desirable or expected state." PRO actually did, repeatedly. Because the original debate with Keke2002 framed it the same way."

No no NO! Keke's debate is, again, NOT PART OF THIS DEBATE.

"14) CON: "My opponent cannot soundly claim there is any such probability, certainly not one of .5." True as this is, I would attribute it to system bias."

It doesn't matter why you think it's true, if it's true, how then can you soundly quote reason 11 as a reason you liked Pro??

"15) CON: "if one opposes the notion of 'should' they are supporting 'should not'. This is, again, a false dichotomy." Absolutely false."

But then you just accused me of creating more options above as a "false dichotomy"!!! My god, do you even know what the word means??

CON's example proves why:

"CON: " "I do not think that we have an obligation or duty to elect a female president"" - i.e. "we should NOT elect a female President". CON just disproved herself here. This is picture perfect proof why I think CON's usage of the word "should" is incorrect in this context, and that PRO's usage is more appropriate.""

Again, NO. You are misquoting me. I did not "disprove" myself there, I was arguing AGAINST that way of thinking, not ADVOCATING it.

"16) On BoP, I automatically assume it is shared if it is not clear in round #1. Most people would say it falls on the instigator."

It fails on the claim maker. Usually that is the instigator, but not always.

"17) CON: "She has not, as I have defined the resolution, argued for why we have an obligation or duty to elect a female president..." I agree PRO did not argue this particular point, but I disagree that it was defined in the resolution. Blatant falsehood here by CON. - conduct to PRO."

How is it a falsehood? She DIDN;T argue that, and it was the definition I repeatedly proposed as being the correct definition. You may think it's not a hood definition; fine. But it was NOT a FALSEHOOD. You claiming it is a falsehood is, itself, a falsehood.

Do you people understand it now? Wrichcirw repeatedly made judgments based on misinformation, or twisting my words into something they were not. Then he goes on in the comments to say he will change his vote to ALSO give Pro grammar, because, when I corrected him on what a false dichotomy was, and how I did not make one, he got upset, called me a troll, and assumably changed his vote to "teach me a lesson".

His vote against me is riddled with poor judgment, personal bias, and deceit. That is vote bombing.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:57:48 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Someone please counter DoctorDeku. Both debtors asked the the audience do not voe on the debate, and he is outright ignoring this.

http://www.debate.org...
DoctorDeku
Posts: 162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 10:20:18 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 12:57:48 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Someone please counter DoctorDeku. Both debtors asked the the audience do not voe on the debate, and he is outright ignoring this.

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

How is it alright for you to ask for a counter on a vote that isn't a bomb? Almost every debater asks the audience to vote for themselves at the end of a debate but that doesn't obligate the audience to vote for them; in the same way just because both of you have asked me not to vote that doesn't obligate me not to vote.

You accepted the debate and outright gave up when you saw the odds weren't in your favor. You fully deserve to lose that debate on the merit of your conduct.

I encourage anyone reading this post to check out the aforementioned debate and support me in this.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 10:28:40 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Doctor Deku continues to consistently change his vote, against the will of both debaters. We request a counter vote to nullify the debate.

http://www.debate.org...
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 10:34:31 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"How is it alright for you to ask for a counter on a vote that isn't a bomb? Almost every debater asks the audience to vote for themselves at the end of a debate but that doesn't obligate the audience to vote for them; in the same way just because both of you have asked me not to vote that doesn't obligate me not to vote."

The difference is Deku, there's an understanding when it comes to mistakes in debates. In real life, if someone said "let's debate something", and you said "Sure, I'll debate X position...oh wait, that's what YOU support? Well then I guess there's nothing to debate then", you wouldn't not be "voted against", because a debate NEVER HAPPENED. Online, we don't get that courtesy of course; there's still a programmed "debate". So we request no one votes on it, to bring about the closest possible situation to how it would resolve itself in real life; to bring it as close to never having happened as possible.

"You accepted the debate and outright gave up when you saw the odds weren't in your favor. You fully deserve to lose that debate on the merit of your conduct."

No DD, I accepted believing I was arguing one side. As soon as I saw I was pro, I immediately apologized and explained I had read the positions wrong. That is not having "the odds not in my favor". That is me saying "whoops, sorry, I thought something else was going on here. I actually don't want to debate this."

"I encourage anyone reading this post to check out the aforementioned debate and support me in this."

Considering people do this quite frequently on this site, no one is going to support you. When people ask members not to vote, it is understand that you don't vote.
DoctorDeku
Posts: 162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 10:37:18 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 10:28:40 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Doctor Deku continues to consistently change his vote, against the will of both debaters. We request a counter vote to nullify the debate.

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

If my vote is not a vote bomb, and it is countered -- then anyone who counters the vote will be votebombing the debate by taking away the sanctity of my vote.

My warrant for giving conduct to Con was that Pro forfeited when she found that the resolution was not worded in her favor. That both wasted Con's time and wasted a perfectly good debate.

It does not matter that the debaters asked that no-one vote; almost every debater requests that the voters vote for them in any other given round, but that isn't justification to vote for them just because they asked for it.

Also, Forfeit-
https://www.debate.org...
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 10:46:39 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"If my vote is not a vote bomb, and it is countered -- then anyone who counters the vote will be votebombing the debate by taking away the sanctity of my vote."

It was a vote bomb.

No debate occured. Both my opponent and myself agreed to not debate the issue due to a misunderstanding. Ergo, there was no debate for you vote on. Yet you are casting a vote anyway, because poor little you didn't get to see a debate.

News flash: You don't own us. If we choose not to debate the subject, we get to do that.

"My warrant for giving conduct to Con was that Pro forfeited when she found that the resolution was not worded in her favor. That both wasted Con's time and wasted a perfectly good debate."

And yet, the only one who seems upset over this is YOU. Not my opponent, nor myself, care. We recognized it was a simple misunderstanding, and went about our business.

You had to come in and make a big deal about it, because you didn't get to read your precious debate. This isn't about you, or what you want/wanted. It is about OUR desires as the people who would have debated.

Further more, I did not "forfeit". No debate occurred for me to forfeit. I told my opponent I misread something, and therefore, should not be debating the topic. hey understood, and we did not debate. I cannot forfeit that which did not occur.

"It does not matter that the debaters asked that no-one vote; almost every debater requests that the voters vote for them in any other given round, but that isn't justification to vote for them just because they asked for it."

Again, there's a difference when two people who DEBATED ask for a vote for themselves, and two people who agreed NOT TO DEBATE ask people not to vote; because no debate occurred to vote upon. We chose not to argue. Period. You have nothing to vote upon. That why we said don't cast a vote.
DoctorDeku
Posts: 162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 11:01:24 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 10:46:39 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
"If my vote is not a vote bomb, and it is countered -- then anyone who counters the vote will be votebombing the debate by taking away the sanctity of my vote."

It was a vote bomb.

No it was not. My RFD is sound, you lost conduct because you didn't even try.
No debate occured. Both my opponent and myself agreed to not debate the issue due to a misunderstanding. Ergo, there was no debate for you vote on. Yet you are casting a vote anyway, because poor little you didn't get to see a debate.

If you insist on complaining about this issue could you at least not insult me while doing so? The point was that there was no debate because you gave up when you saw the resolution was not your favor; you wasted a debate because you didn't want to do it, and you lost conduct for it.

News flash: You don't own us. If we choose not to debate the subject, we get to do that.

And if I choose to vote, <b>I get to do that</b>

"My warrant for giving conduct to Con was that Pro forfeited when she found that the resolution was not worded in her favor. That both wasted Con's time and wasted a perfectly good debate."

And yet, the only one who seems upset over this is YOU. Not my opponent, nor myself, care. We recognized it was a simple misunderstanding, and went about our business.

Your opponent has made no statement on the matter. You're upset because you don't like that I voted against you. I bet if I had voted for you and made up some ridiculous RFD you wouldn't care less.

You engaged in a public debate, on a public website and I vote on that debate. You don't get to claim I'm being abusive when it's public instead of just inside you house.

You had to come in and make a big deal about it, because you didn't get to read your precious debate. This isn't about you, or what you want/wanted. It is about OUR desires as the people who would have debated.

So then I should just vote for whoever asks for it? because by that logic asking the judge to vote a certain way is enough to warrant that vote. This is a public website, and you participated in a public debate. You don't get to throw a tantrum when someone votes in a way you don't like.

Further more, I did not "forfeit". No debate occurred for me to forfeit. I told my opponent I misread something, and therefore, should not be debating the topic. hey understood, and we did not debate. I cannot forfeit that which did not occur.

That <b>is</b> a forfeit. I don't understand why you think that's acceptable.
"It does not matter that the debaters asked that no-one vote; almost every debater requests that the voters vote for them in any other given round, but that isn't justification to vote for them just because they asked for it."

Again, there's a difference when two people who DEBATED ask for a vote for themselves, and two people who agreed NOT TO DEBATE ask people not to vote; because no debate occurred to vote upon. We chose not to argue. Period. You have nothing to vote upon. That why we said don't cast a vote.

<b>I voted based on conduct. That was legitimate grounds to vote on.</b> Furthermore you had two different people counter my vote when it was legitimate. If anything is wrong here it's that you're having people vote bomb your debate so you don't lose.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 11:16:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"No it was not. My RFD is sound, you lost conduct because you didn't even try."

I cannot "not try" at something that never happened; we never debated a topic. Don't you undertand that? It's as if that page doesn't exist. We never made arguments. We chose not to debate the subject. Both myself and my opponent agreed to this.

Also, quote:

"1.3 Vote bombing. Abuse of DDO voting privileges by awarding points to a debater for reasons unrelated to the arguments or evidence presented in the debate."

Emphasis mine. No debate occurred Deku. There were no arguments or evidences presented, not from want of trying, but because both my opponent and myself agreed we didn't not wish to debate the topic. Nothing happened. No debate happened.

So for you to cast a vote, is to have cast a vote not based on arguments or evidence presented. Ergo, a vote bomb, as defined by this site. Not to mention it is completely disrespectful and unacceptable behavior.

And if I choose to vote, <b>I get to do that</b>

No, you don't. Not if there was no debate to vote upon, which was the case of this situation. We did not debate, we said don't vote, yet you voted anyway; that is unacceptable. You don't get to make that choice Deku.

"Your opponent has made no statement on the matter."

Hello? Did you not see them post "Do not vote" in the round? Further more, it was implicit by their willingness to convers with me that they had no intention of debating the topic with me.

"You're upset because you don't like that I voted against you. I bet if I had voted for you and made up some ridiculous RFD you wouldn't care less."

Not at all. I would be just as outraged.

Although I have to wonder if you're just looking for an excuse to make me lose. Got something against me? Is that the reason for your asinine behavior?

"You engaged in a public debate, on a public website and I vote on that debate. You don't get to claim I'm being abusive when it's public instead of just inside you house."

I do get to claim such a thing, when the people who were supposedly debating the subject specifically said "do not vote". If we had the power, we would have deleted the debate, as we chose not to debate it. But that is a technical impossibility considering we do not own the website. Ergo, we ask that no one vote to TREAT it that way. You go against that. You go against respectful behavior by forcing us to be judged for something we chose not to do. That is not acceptable behavior.

"So then I should just vote for whoever asks for it? because by that logic asking the judge to vote a certain way is enough to warrant that vote."

No, that is not what my logic is saying. Again, as I stated, there is a VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCE between two people who DEBATED a subject, and two people who CHOSE NOT TO DEBATE TO BEGIN WITH.

"This is a public website, and you participated in a public debate. You don't get to throw a tantrum when someone votes in a way you don't like."

No, we participated in no debate. That's your flaw. you think we participated in a debate; we did not.

"That <b>is</b> a forfeit. I don't understand why you think that's acceptable."

I cannot "forfeit" something we never did. That's like saying, if my opponent and I had agreed to play a game of Chess, then we decided not to, that I "forfeited" the chess game; I didn't forfeit, because WE NEVER DID IT TO BEGIN WITH.

"<b>I voted based on conduct. That was legitimate grounds to vote on.</b>"

There was no debate for which to give a conduct vote. Ergo, not a legitimate ground.

"Furthermore you had two different people counter my vote when it was legitimate. If anything is wrong here it's that you're having people vote bomb your debate so you don't lose."

I'm not having people vote bomb my debate, I'm having people counter your vote bomb, so the result remains what my opponent and I desired it to be; a tie. We didn't want any votes, because neither of us desires to "win" something neither of us participated in. We chose not to debate the subject, so neither of us should "win" it when we never debated it to begin with.

But this is is pretty easily understood logic, as evidenced by the people who consider your vote a vote bomb, and considering the number of people who ask for a no vote on this site. I'm beginning to suspect this has less to do with the debate, and more of you being hellbent on looking for a reason to make me lose a debate. Perhaps out of spite. Personal feelings.

Which by the way, are also signs of a vote bomb according to this site.
DoctorDeku
Posts: 162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 11:32:29 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 11:16:09 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
"No it was not. My RFD is sound, you lost conduct because you didn't even try."

I cannot "not try" at something that never happened; we never debated a topic. Don't you undertand that? It's as if that page doesn't exist. We never made arguments. We chose not to debate the subject. Both myself and my opponent agreed to this.

That's the point. Nothing Happened
Also, quote:

"1.3 Vote bombing. Abuse of DDO voting privileges by awarding points to a debater for reasons unrelated to the arguments or evidence presented in the debate."


Conduct is a voter, and my warrant for the conduct is sound.

Emphasis mine. No debate occurred Deku. There were no arguments or evidences presented, not from want of trying, but because both my opponent and myself agreed we didn't not wish to debate the topic. Nothing happened. No debate happened.

There was no debate or arguments because you accepted a debate and then refused to debate it.
So for you to cast a vote, is to have cast a vote not based on arguments or evidence presented. Ergo, a vote bomb, as defined by this site. Not to mention it is completely disrespectful and unacceptable behavior.

If voting on conduct wasn't legitimate, then why would it be a voter? aside from that your harassment via PM calling me 'idiotic' and a 'pighead' would justify the conduct voter anyway.

Would you care for me to screenshot and post that PM?
And if I choose to vote, <b>I get to do that</b>

No, you don't. Not if there was no debate to vote upon, which was the case of this situation. We did not debate, we said don't vote, yet you voted anyway; that is unacceptable. You don't get to make that choice Deku.

Yes. Yes I do. What you don't get to do is throw a tantrum because my vote doesn't align with you wishes.
"Your opponent has made no statement on the matter."

Hello? Did you not see them post "Do not vote" in the round? Further more, it was implicit by their willingness to convers with me that they had no intention of debating the topic with me.

And what have they said since? I've already told you I don't vote for a specific person because they request it; I gave conduct to your opponent for you messing up the round and him being so gracious about it.
"You're upset because you don't like that I voted against you. I bet if I had voted for you and made up some ridiculous RFD you wouldn't care less."

Not at all. I would be just as outraged.

Okay then.
Although I have to wonder if you're just looking for an excuse to make me lose. Got something against me? Is that the reason for your asinine behavior?

I read the the debate, was disappointed that you refused to even try and voted accordingly. Why would that even begin to indicate I had anything against you?
"You engaged in a public debate, on a public website and I vote on that debate. You don't get to claim I'm being abusive when it's public instead of just inside you house."

I do get to claim such a thing, when the people who were supposedly debating the subject specifically said "do not vote". If we had the power, we would have deleted the debate, as we chose not to debate it. But that is a technical impossibility considering we do not own the website. Ergo, we ask that no one vote to TREAT it that way. You go against that. You go against respectful behavior by forcing us to be judged for something we chose not to do. That is not acceptable behavior.

If you had waited for the first round to time out, you wouldn't have had to debate it. But instead you just said 'oops my bad' before the debate even started. Why didn't you even try to argue? Oh wait, that's right because it's 'idiotic' right?
"So then I should just vote for whoever asks for it? because by that logic asking the judge to vote a certain way is enough to warrant that vote."

No, that is not what my logic is saying. Again, as I stated, there is a VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCE between two people who DEBATED a subject, and two people who CHOSE NOT TO DEBATE TO BEGIN WITH.

You did choose to debate, you backed out when you realized you read the resolution wrong.
"This is a public website, and you participated in a public debate. You don't get to throw a tantrum when someone votes in a way you don't like."

No, we participated in no debate. That's your flaw. you think we participated in a debate; we did not.

And that was your fault; this conduct goes to your opponent.
"That <b>is</b> a forfeit. I don't understand why you think that's acceptable."

I cannot "forfeit" something we never did. That's like saying, if my opponent and I had agreed to play a game of Chess, then we decided not to, that I "forfeited" the chess game; I didn't forfeit, because WE NEVER DID IT TO BEGIN WITH.

So you're telling me if you sat down to a chess board and after realizing you weren't the color you wanted to be said 'never mind, I don't want to play' that's not a forfeit? Especially if it were a sanctioned game in a tournament or chess club?

That's absurd.
"<b>I voted based on conduct. That was legitimate grounds to vote on.</b>"

There was no debate for which to give a conduct vote. Ergo, not a legitimate ground.

Says who? You?
"Furthermore you had two different people counter my vote when it was legitimate. If anything is wrong here it's that you're having people vote bomb your debate so you don't lose."

I'm not having people vote bomb my debate, I'm having people counter your vote bomb, so the result remains what my opponent and I desired it to be; a tie. We didn't want any votes, because neither of us desires to "win" something neither of us participated in. We chose not to debate the subject, so neither of us should "win" it when we never debated it to begin with.

so the result remains what my opponent and I desired it to be; a tie Asking for a vote to turn a debate out the way you want it to be is a votebomb.

But this is is pretty easily understood logic, as evidenced by the people who consider your vote a vote bomb, and considering the number of people who ask for a no vote on this site. I'm beginning to suspect this has less to do with the debate, and more of you being hellbent on looking for a reason to make me lose a debate. Perhaps out of spite. Personal feelings.

Okay then. And you sending me an offensive PM isn't spitful?
I'm only just beginning to get upset about this, due in part by the fact you feel it's alright to call me an 'idiotic' 'pighead'.

Which by the way, are also signs of a vote bomb according to this site.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 11:58:44 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Forfeited debate
http://www.debate.org...
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:02:46 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 11:32:29 AM, DoctorDeku wrote:
That's the point. Nothing Happened:

Exactly. <b>Nothing happened. We chose not to debate.</b> I agreed to debate my opponent under the misinformation that I would be arguing Con. When I realized this was not so, I immediately apologized to my opponent, and we both agreed not to debate the topic.

<b>There was no debate for you to vote upon.</b>

Conduct is a voter, and my warrant for the conduct is sound.:

Your warrant for conduct is unsound, because the conduct vote is for conduct within a debate; no debate occurred, because my opponent and I both agreed not to argue. We canceled the debate. Therefore, there was no "debate conduct" for you to vote upon.

There was no debate or arguments because you accepted a debate and then refused to debate it.:

Correction: There were no arguments because I agreed to debate the topic, realized I had made a mistake when reading who was arguing what, and because of that, both my opponent and myself agreed not to debate the subject. This was not misconduct on my part. It's not as if my opponent was trying to debate the subject, and I simply refuse to do so in the middle of arguments being thrown out. From the very beginning, we both agreed not to debate. Therefore there was no debate for you to vote upon.

If voting on conduct wasn't legitimate, then why would it be a voter? aside from that your harassment via PM calling me 'idiotic' and a 'pighead' would justify the conduct voter anyway.:

Uh, no, it wouldn't. Because our PM conversations are not things that happened within a debate, so it would NOT justify a conduct vote. That would also be a case of vote bombing.

And what do you mean by "why would it be a <b>voter</b>? What does that even mean? The conduct point is not sentient. It cannot vote on it's own. Do you mean "why was it an option for the voter"? The obvious answer is, because, if a debate HAD occurred, it would have been a factor worth voting upon.

But no such debate occurred, so you cannot justly give the conduct point to either side. the conduct point is for conduct amidst a debate; we never debated out of a mutual agreement.

Would you care for me to screenshot and post that PM?:

I don't see what you are trying to prove. Again, PM conversations are not a reason to vote a particular way in a debate. That is unjust voting, and vote bombing. For god's sake, it's right there in the quote I provided to you. You're breaking your own site rules by proposing our PM conversations are a valid reason to vote how you did.

And I stand by every word I've written between us.

Yes. Yes I do.:

No, you don't. Because to vote is unjust, as there was no debate to vote upon to begin with.

What you don't get to do is throw a tantrum because my vote doesn't align with you wishes.:

Raising a complaint over vote bombing is not throwing a tantrum over you not voting "how I want".

However, creating an unjust vote to spite a particular meber, because you didn't get to see the reviting and exicting debate you'd hoped to read? That is childish tantrum throwing.

And what have they said since? I've already told you I don't vote for a specific person because they request it; I gave conduct to your opponent for you messing up the round and him being so gracious about it.:

Does it matter what they've said since? No, it doesn't. They made their desires clear; to wipe the slate of this "debate", because we chose never to argue the subject. We didn't debate, there's no conduct point to give out.

I read the the debate, was disappointed that you refused to even try and voted accordingly. Why would that even begin to indicate I had anything against you?:

It indicates you have something indirectly against you. As you said in our PM conversations, you were looking forward to reading a good debate. You feel I robbed you of that, so you want to punish me, by voting whatever it is that you feel needs to be done to make me lose; despite the fact that this goes against the wishes of both my opponent and myself. Ergo, you have something against me, and are voting on the basis of personal feelings.

If you had waited for the first round to time out, you wouldn't have had to debate it. But instead you just said 'oops my bad' before the debate even started. Why didn't you even try to argue? Oh wait, that's right because it's 'idiotic' right?:

YEs, it would have been idiotic. Why would I waste my opponent's and my own time by debating something I did not even believe in? Further more, it would have been even more idiotic for me to have let the clock run down and not post any arguments; because my opponent would have been left expecting someone to argue, and be receiving no responses. I am not your slave DoctorDeku. I am not here to argue for your amusement. Nor was my opponent. We made a choice not to argue you are penalizing us for that. Get over yourself. You are not important, and your desires mean absolutely nothing.

You did choose to debate, you backed out when you realized you read the resolution wrong.:

Exactly. Ergo, we cancelled the debate. I agreed to debate, realized my mistake, explained it, and we chose not to debate.

You seem to think that by accepting the debate, we somehow were bound to debate the topic; again, we are not your slaves. We can do as we please, and we chose, out of respect, not to debate the topic, or force me to argue, simply because of a dyslexic mistake. You are absolutely ridiculous.

And that was your fault; this conduct goes to your opponent.:

No, because conduct is based on behavior in a debate. There was no debate in which you could judge conduct. Conduct is not a point you can just give out willy nilly because you feel like it Deku.

So you're telling me if you sat down to a chess board and after realizing you weren't the color you wanted to be said 'never mind, I don't want to play' that's not a forfeit? Especially if it were a sanctioned game in a tournament or chess club?:

This was not something set up in advance. This was a spur of the moment thing. Your example would be more accurate if it were the following:

1. It took place in a chess club, between two members.

2. We decided to, spur of the moment, play a game.

3. We sat down, and one of us decided they did not feel like playing after all, because they preferred to play as Black and not White, and didn't realize their opponent wanted to play Black.

By your logic, because they agreed to play, they should have been bound to play, against their will. And if they chose not to, after only choosing to play just a few seconds before, they somehow "forfeited" the match; even though the match never actually started, and no game was ever played or started. This is preposterous.

Says who? You?:

Syas the fact that no debate occurred, and the conduct point deals with behavior amidst a debate.

Asking for a vote to turn a debate out the way you want it to be is a votebomb.:

Ridiculous. Then every time two people have made a mistake and asked "don't vote", they are somehow "vote bombing". And every time Con or Pro says "Vote Pro/Con", they are vote bombing.

You're logic makes no sense. you're just scrambling for excuses at this point.
DudeWithoutTheE
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:18:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/5/2013 2:35:28 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:

Further more, one person saying "I don't think it is a vote bomb" is hardly "the forum" coming to such a conclusion. He provided a detailed RDF, but read through it. Many of the things criticiszed were not true. And on top of that, he went back and altered his vote based on my conversation with him after the debate in the comments. At the VERY least, his grammar vote was unjust, as he made based on things that didn't happen in the debate.

Whether the things he is voting on are 'True' or not IN YOUR OPINION is irrelevant. All the rest of this post and the following one are you contending that his interpretation of things that happened in the debate was wrong. JUDGES HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG. DDOers hardly ever think that a vote going against them was correct. That doesn't mean that judges are constantly votebombing. You point to arguments your opponent made that the judge claimed were compelling that you claimed were misrepresentations. You claimed that things your opponent said were irrelevant and should not be taken into consideration. Guess what, that's the judge's call, not yours. I don't agree with a lot of his reasoning, but that's not relevant either.

It is a votebomb if he voted based on a dislike of you or an affinity for one side of the argument or other that had nothing to do with what was posted in the debate. If he has shown a dislike for you, that is directly the result of what you did IN THE DEBATE. Given that everything you are arguing with him about in the comments was either something that was said in the debate or related to your comments in the comment section, you haven't a leg to stand on in calling it a votebomb.
DudeWithoutTheE
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:22:09 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Also, 1dustpelt has CVBed Bull_Diesel's CVB of Dark Armageddon's CVB to a vote that was clearly not a votebomb in the first place. Therefore, a counter-counter-counter-counter-votebomb is necessary.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:27:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 12:18:26 PM, DudeWithoutTheE wrote:
Whether the things he is voting on are 'True' or not IN YOUR OPINION is irrelevant.:

It's not my opinion. It is an objective fact.

1) The conduct point is for conduct within a debate.
2) No debate occurred.
3) Ergo, the conduct point cannot justly be given out.

All the rest of this post and the following one are you contending that his interpretation of things that happened in the debate was wrong. JUDGES HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG.:

There is a difference between being wrong, and vote bombing. He is doing the latter.

DDOers hardly ever think that a vote going against them was correct. That doesn't mean that judges are constantly votebombing.:

I...never claimed that. I specifically discussed WHY it is a vote bomb, and that is not because it was against me. I was because his vote is based upon the following:

1) He did not get to read a debate he wanted to read, so he wanted to punish the party he thought responsible for denying him an interesting debate.
2) The conduct point cannot be given out, because no debate occurred.
3) He constantly changed his vote, just to try and make me lose. In other words, he was voting based on a personal bias against ne.

You point to arguments your opponent made that the judge claimed were compelling that you claimed were misrepresentations. You claimed that things your opponent said were irrelevant and should not be taken into consideration. Guess what, that's the judge's call, not yours. I don't agree with a lot of his reasoning, but that's not relevant either.:

Wait...what?

What are you talking about?

We didn't have a debate. Both my opponent and I agreed to not debate the issue, due to a misunderstanding.

It is a votebomb if he voted based on a dislike of you or an affinity for one side of the argument or other that had nothing to do with what was posted in the debate.:

...Which is precisely what DoctorDeku did.

If he has shown a dislike for you, that is directly the result of what you did IN THE DEBATE.:

There wasn't a debate to begin with. That's the entire central problem. My opponent and I chose not to debate. There was no debate to vote on. No victor to declare; DoctorDeku voted anyway, despite this.

Given that everything you are arguing with him about in the comments was either something that was said in the debate or related to your comments in the comment section, you haven't a leg to stand on in calling it a votebomb.:

Wait what? You've lost me now. What are you even talking about?
DudeWithoutTheE
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:31:57 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 1/6/2013 12:27:48 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Wait what? You've lost me now. What are you even talking about?

The exact same thing I was talking to you about yesterday (and which you were talking about in the post I quoted), the debate vs rross.

You're probably right with regard to DoctorDeku, I don't really care.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 12:33:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Also, 1dustpelt has CVBed Bull_Diesel's CVB of Dark Armageddon's CVB to a vote that was clearly not a votebomb in the first place. Therefore, a counter-counter-counter-counter-votebomb is necessary.:

Oh. You're talking about that debate.

People already did that. Then they went back and looked at the situation again, and changed their vote. Yeah, what;s his name listed a bunch of reasons, but so many of them, as I outlined, were flawed (as in, intentional misrepresentation of what I said) or entirely false reasons, or votes based on things that didn't happen in the debate, but in the comments or elsewhere. That is the textbook definition of a vote bomb. It was countered, and the two votes neutralized.

I've already gone through this. It's over and done. If you want to know more, look back up through the topic, or read through all the comments, to see the reasons for labeling whichwhatevertheirnameis' vote a vote bomb. Evidentially, I am not the only person who thought so. And hell, even then, there are people who voted in favor of me, simply based on the debate itself, without any talk of vote bombing or counter-vote bombing.

In short, the issue is dead and dealt with.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.