I can agree with most of that, only taking exception to the question of morality being more relevant to the thread's purpose (or more accurate), considering this is a thread about the best debaters and morality doesn't exactly account for ability, not that you necessarily believe that.
The analogy I wrote probably presents itself as a somewhat (minor) moral conundrum so I can accept why it likely distracted a little. However, the purpose was strictly to establish intent vs outcome.
Context is enormous here. Relevant to this thread? I'd agree. Generally? I can't.
Someone who lies (AP as an example, at least from what I've heard) about what they're debating about, inventing sources and information? They're likely a shittier debater and mostly chime in to polemicize anyway. Someone who is biased but points to genuine sources and such? They can be right if the source favors their bias but wrong if it doesn't (someone who is typically biased will misinterpret the source to benefit whatever they might be biased toward) so it's usually a bit of a crapshoot.
In general? Just to cover bases here? It's incredibly dependent. Someone might lie through their teeth but might not about sources and debate effectively, perhaps even lying about their particular stance (Cognitive dissonance? Contrarianism? Phony devil's advocacy? The intention probably has a dynamic range) but still be effective at debate. Someone who's biased might not be capable of that or even as adept at formulating anything worth argumentation.
Also, those are biased but honest not easily dismissed is part of the point. Sure, they aren't lying but it begs the question of whether they should still be taken as seriously. If someone is obvious about it, we dismiss them as "fanboys" and do not take them seriously, probably with about as much contention as we would someone who is outright dishonest. If the person is biased and has an iota of debate ability? I think we lose that contention and it's also why I think it's worse to the overall "health" (forgive me for not finding a more suitable term) of a debate environment.
A stance supported by biased, irrational interpretations is something I would argue isn't truly supported. Someone who is generally biased can be correct but definitely not consistently so just due to the intrinsic nature of having prejudice towards a subject/object/etc. At some point, they will inevitably come up short.
Mostly? I'd agree that the outright dishonest individual is typically a more abysmal debater. Individually, it's usually embarrassing and even with a couple of them, it's not much of an issue. Overall, we mostly agree.
AP poses little threat now because he's already been exposed, but at one point, he had had an entire forum under his sway and his lies likely still effect debaters from there to this day. As I mentioned, with the biased individuals who genuinely believe what they're spouting, you can dismiss their claims if they don't make sense ( as with anything else ) and if they do make sense then they're of course worth considering.
__________________ "I like big sweaty testicles." - DMB, Gchat, 2017.
I love how AP gets caught red-handed doing stupid shit and then tries to spin it to make it look like he's smarter than he actually is instead of owning up to what he did. It's especially amusing how he seems to think it isn't obvious as **** that that's what he's doing, too, lol.
The line of justification "you're just stupid for falling for my manipulation!" is also a common tactic used by manipulative psychopaths, btw.
Registered: Aug 2014
Location: The balance of the Force
If Joker was right. (Though that's an ironic sentence in and of itself.)
It wasn't an agenda, it was me mocking a so-called debating forum, which used Wookieepedia almost exclusively as a source. So I took it one step further and convinced them of nonexistent feats/accolades. Then they all seemed so surprised, and then even raged about it to the point that Sel and others literally obsessed about nothing but me in a private chat. (Thanks Skillz, priceless.)
Even Temp would have to be impressed by that.
Within your furnace heart, you burn in your own flame. This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker.