Yraelz, beem0r, Logical-Master, and SportsGuru ought to be kicked off debate.com
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 5/10/2008 | Category: | Society |
| Updated: | 3 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 363 times | Debate No: | 3975 |
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (65)
Votes (17)
 Pro #1. They all clog this site with stupid debates. http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... in-schools/1/ http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debate.com... All of these debates are devoid of any intellectualism. They all concern topics that are the epitome of triviality and are just plain childish. Does "I can hold a chicken with my butt" make any sense to you? Or how about "Under the Below listed rules, my opponent will lose this debate." Utter nonsense. All of these topics only manage to drive away the people who are honestly seeking to be enlightened. BUT I tell you that there is no enlightenment in any of the bullcrap topics listed above. #2. They are probably the same person. They all like to comment on each other's debates, they all follow the same points of their discussions too closely (as if they know what each other is thinking), they all sound alike ("My opponent did this, my opponent did that), they all seem to be well versed when it comes to logical fallacies, they all seem to be obsessed with video games like Final Fantasy ("DUDE, YOU GOTTA GET THE NEW CRISIS CORE VIDEO GAME, H'YUCK, H'YUCK, H'YUCK"). And with being the same person, they can rig as many votes in debates. I'm not the only one who notices this as people are starting to retaliate against them through voting against them on all of their debates. After you read this debate, I implore you to vote against all of their debates as well. And I know SportsGuru is logical master. This debate is proof: http://www.debate.com... Doesn't it alarm you that he just HAPPENS to know what Logical master said in his previous debates and that he just HAPPENS to use arguments which Logical master used before? It's all pretty convenient, don't you think? And I've read some comments and have seen sportsguru as being one of the main ones to attack others for claiming that Logical Master is Kleptin. Too convenient: http://www.debate.com... And I've read the tournament page and facebook and recently saw logical master (aka Apollo Justice) suggest that substitutions be allowed in debates. And guess who he wanted to be his substitute? Yraelz and Kleptin. Awfully suspicious, eh? After getting OWNED by Rob1billion, he knew was in trouble, so he used his other account to put himself back in the tournament. As a bonus, he put his alter ego (Kleptin) back in as well. This group must be stopped at all cost. I figured one of them would use some stupid semantical argument, so I made this one round so I wouldn't even have to dignify those jokers with a debate. Take that!  Con Really? You've been roaming around debate.com for two months and JUST joined on the tenth? Strange. "#1. They all clog this site with stupid debates." Debate.com is for almost all debates. Only those deemed inappropriate by the staff actually 'clog' debate.com. If a debate is not deemed inappropriate by the staff, then it matters not if the debate in question is 'stupid' or not. "All of these debates are devoid of any intellectualism. They all concern topics that are the epitome of triviality and are just plain childish." Simply because a debate is trivial or childish does not mean it avoids intellectualism. In fact, most of the debates you mentioned require an insane amount of intellict in order to prove their claims. "Does "I can hold a chicken with my butt" make any sense to you? Or how about "Under the Below listed rules, my opponent will lose this debate." Utter nonsense." Both of those pharses makes perfect sense to me, and as such, it is your word against mine. "All of these topics only manage to drive away the people who are honestly seeking to be enlightened." I doubt that people who wish to be 'enlightened' would be attracted to the phrase "I can hold a whole chick with my butt". "They all like to comment on each other's debates," Wow, it's not like it's possible that they've become friends! That's simply improbable. "they all follow the same points of their discussions too closely" Well, seeing as how it's THEIR discussions, and seeing as how there are only a few points at one time to discuss in any discussion, I'd say that following the same point in a discussion as another in that discussion isn't to strange. "they all sound alike" Great debaters debate alike. Just as great minds think alike. "they all seem to be well versed when it comes to logical fallacies" Great debaters debate alike. "they all seem to be obsessed with video games like Final Fantasy" Video games, especially those such as Finaly Fantasy, are very popular. It may turn out that they have similar interests and are friends. "And with being the same person, they can rig as many votes in debates." They can do that without being the same person. "Doesn't it alarm you that he just HAPPENS to know what Logical master said in his previous debates and that he just HAPPENS to use arguments which Logical master used before?" Yes, it is very alarming that one can simply go and read past debates for arguments in current debate! It's very alarming! "And I've read some comments and have seen sportsguru as being one of the main ones to attack others for claiming that Logical Master is Kleptin." Great debaters debate alike. And this is the internet. Alike people on the internet are many times accused of being the same person. "And guess who he wanted to be his substitute? Yraelz and Kleptin" There is the possibility that Yraelz, Kleptin, and Logical Master are friends. "After getting OWNED by Rob1billion, he knew was in trouble, so he used his other account to put himself back in the tournament." Actually, maybe he just wanted to debate someone that he knew he had a chance against, seeing as how Logical Master seems to(according to you) comment on Kleptin's debates, so he must read them, and as such must know at least a little of Kleptin's debating style. "I made this one round so I wouldn't even have to dignify those jokers with a debate" So, in other words, you completely ruined the point of starting a debate on debate.com? |
 |
17 votes have been cast for this debate.
Coming in September, 2008
A complete graphical breakdown of the votes by:
- Age Group
- Country
- Education
- Ethnicity
- Gender
- Ideology
- Income
- Political Party
- Religion
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
Now let us imagine a hypothetical situation. You start a debate that looks like this:
========
DRIVING A MANUAL CAR IS COOL
Driving a manual car is very cool for a number of reasons. First off it takes more skill than driving an automatic. Secondly driving a manual allows for slowing down without ever applying the breaks at rates exceeding that of driving an automatic. Third in a manual you can rev as high as you want, thereby you can accelerate faster than an automatic. Yay!
========
At which point a debater joins your debate and says something like, "None of his points had to do with proving a manual was cool, cool is defined as being below the temperature of comfort."
Now you have two choices.
A. You can present the definition of cool you were using and argue that that was obviously the intent, something you will probably win.
B. You can click the "Begin a debate button", you can type the title, "Driving a manual car is cool." and then you can clt + c your argument from the first one, something which takes about 2 seconds to do.
Personally I think semantic arguments help this website due to the fact that they encourage debaters to create solid resolutions instead of crap like, "Should abortion be allowed?"
Whether or not unsolicited abuse requires retribution is debatable. I think reformation would work better.
As far as debates calling for my removal excluding the ones you created and the ones I created, there are none.
The fact that they blindsided other debaters in the first place is abusive. Committing abusive actions towards someone when they were unsolicited begs for retribution. I've addressed this point repeatedly, and you still don't seem to get it. Would you like me to put it in simpler terms to help you comprehend?
As far as debates calling for your dismissal from the site, there were the two you made, this one, and others addressing other debaters. Whether you were included or not, I can't recall. If you want to know specifically every debate calling for the dismissal of certain debaters, check the search engine in the "debates" tab and look for yourself. In addition to debates, I've seen the topic of the removal of certain debaters discussed several times in comments on several debates. As much as you frequent this site, if you haven't noticed a number of people annoyed by the the aforementioned debaters for their abusive behaviors, then you aren't paying attention or your memory is atrocious. I suspect that the very reason you made the debates calling for your own dismissal is because of this factor.
It can be annoying to have someone semantic debate on a debate that you wanted to have a meaningful debate. However the annoyance takes about 20 seconds of your time to simply make a new debate with the specification "Don't debate semantics", or even just argue it in the round, "Semantic arguments are abusive, intent is important."
And what debates have you read with people calling for our dismissal from the site? Didn't I personally make the only two debates. -.-?
Yraelz: Maybe they're the same person, or maybe they're different people who have or have had multiple accounts. Maybe the reason they blindside unsuspecting debaters is to increase their win ratio, maybe it's to feel dominant, or maybe it's for some other reason unknown to me. Either way, what I'm getting at here is that Logical Master, Kleptin, and likely some other debaters on this site are deserving of some of the annoyances caused by those you refer to as "trolls".
I've seen several debates, such as this one, claiming that you, Logical Master, Kleptin, Beem0r, SportsGuru, etc should be kicked off this site due to behaviors I've previously mentioned as well as plain frustration that those calling for your removal are inferior debaters. I can only attest to Logical Master and Kleptin behaving in a disrespectful manner. As for you and the others, I've not personally read any debates in which I would share the same frustrations as those who are calling for your dismissal from this site. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, or if it has, that anyone should be kicked off.
I believe that semantical arguments can certainly be used in a debate, but as previously mentioned, it's extremely rude to blindside someone who's looking to have a meaningful debate (specifically those who are new to this site) with a semantical argument. Why it is that you can't seem to understand this, I'm not exactly sure. Maybe it's most convenient for you not to understand this concept.
I mean sure, it is possible (not likely) that they created multiple accounts in order to up their win ratio. Debated them against each other to make it look legitimate. Then ensued in a "who can make the most account wars" with trolls and decided the best idea would be to "stop while they were ahead." Yeah, it's possible, I just don't think it is likely.
In your portrayal of them it would seem that they don't care all that much about their win ratio, they just kind of care. They would like to sustain it at 60% instead of increasing it. This is inconsistent with the idea of them making multiple accounts. Someone who doesn't care all that much would be unlikely to go through to trouble that could result in them possibly being kicked off.
On point 7 you apparently have dropped your original,
"To address point #7, for you to assume that there's only one reason for someone to have another account is a fallacy."
In favor of stating,
"At no point have you "shown why it would be implausible for them to being do this for the sake of voting for themselves many times.""
And of course you are ignoring all of my points which give a second perspective of logical-master by simply disregarding them as my opinion. That's cool I suppose.
Anyways, I'm not trying to prove to you that they are not the same person, all I'm doing is stating that this possibility is rather unlikely.
As for my opinion being biased, why would you think that?
I did not ignore points 3 and 7. I stated that "your personal opinions about Logical Master and Kleptin are meaningless." These points are nothing more than opinion, and are therefore irrelevant.
In regards to point A in your last comment, refer the first couple of sentences in this comment. As for point B, if you're unsuspecting, how are you supposed to know to take a precaution at the start of a debate. In many cases, those who are new to the site have no way of knowing that such measures should be taken if they intend to have a meaningful argument.
As far as my reply to your 7th point, come on man, you know what I was saying and I know what you were saying. The comment you made reads "Seventh, I have debated Logical multiple times. He is a very worthy debate opponent on this site and deserves to have a high win ratio. He honestly does not need multiple accounts." Whether you came out and said it or not, the underlying insinuation was that he didn't need to have multiple accounts in order to increase his win ratio, so lets cut the B.S. At no point have you "shown why it would be implausible for them to being do this for the sake of voting for themselves many times." For the record, even if they had multiple accounts for non-voting purposes, it's pathetic/rude.