Batdude123 and TheKahn's Holiday Herald Tournament

Originally posted by illadelph12
If you can lure someone into a trap game and they don't flesh out their own offensive due to getting lost in a pointless exchange, I'm not just gonna fault you for setting the trap, I'm gonna fault them as well for being dumb enough to fall for it.

Making someone focus on defending against attacks on a distorted plan is just plain bull.

Originally posted by Starscream M
you know, I've got to read this leo debate to see what everyone's talking about.

everyone's making it sound like he's being the biggest ass in the world or something...

Originally posted by Charlotte DeBel
Here I didn't really care...

Originally posted by Starscream M
that's a copout

OK, I'm an inferior woman whose opinion on stuff doesn't matter, I shut up and hail great Kris.

😂

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Technically, Charlotte won delph's EZboards tourney.

I had by far the most points and was undefeated (and had defeated every other team at least once).

If this is the same tourney that I'm thinking of...

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Wut?

I had by far the most points and was undefeated (and had defeated every other team at least once).

If this is the same tourney that I'm thinking of...

Technically it was the one I think the crappiest in my career since I managed to lose Chronicles of Riddick battlefield. Was amazing to try and use a tactic of detonating the air inside the lungs of gigantic Deathstroke (50 feet giant and a skyscraper have something in common) and having it disregarded by Smurph (the reason was ridiculous like "Deathstroke wears facemask", and then having DC plagiarise the stuff with their uber-Jubilee despite Jubes never having a feat of detonating something from safe distance.

That said I don't like Jubilee (she is a favourite character of my ex-boyfriend whom I don't regard highly), and I was biased... but that doesn't really matter now- that match was lost due to gigantic tactical mistake (how can one lose the battlefield where you can take control over the gigantic alien invasion by challenging their leader in H2H duel and happen to have the best MAs in the tourney on your team...yet lose). Though there was an exploit of "no magic" loophole by Smurph.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Derailing someone's attention and focus can easily be done without straw-manning though. Making someone focus on attacking/defending an insignificant hole/attack is a clever tactic.

Making someone focus on defending against attacks on a distorted plan is just plain bull.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
No, no, no. Leo's not really the devil when it comes to straw-man. It was just his disrespectful way of addressing his opponents which spurred the debate about tactics.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Maybe, but if strawmanning proves to be an effective way of wasting your opponents space and time, then it'll be a valuable tool to use in a debate. That's the bottom line, really.

Disrespectful way of addressing you or addressing your tactics? Those are two very different things. I didn't read your back and forth closely yet, but I'm sure you have specific instances that caused this reaction, so... did Leo outright insult you, or just act like what you were claiming was ridiculous?

Ridiculising their arguments (with a little bit of name-calling TBH).

Originally posted by Charlotte DeBel
Technically it was the one I think the crappiest in my career since I managed to lose Chronicles of Riddick battlefield. Was amazing to try and use a tactic of detonating the air inside the lungs of gigantic Deathstroke (50 feet giant and a skyscraper have something in common) and having it disregarded by Smurph (the reason was ridiculous like "Deathstroke wears facemask", and then having DC plagiarise the stuff with their uber-Jubilee despite Jubes never having a feat of detonating something from safe distance.

That said I don't like Jubilee (she is a favourite character of my ex-boyfriend whom I don't regard highly), and I was biased... but that doesn't really matter now- that match was lost due to gigantic tactical mistake (how can one lose the battlefield where you can take control over the gigantic alien invasion by challenging their leader in H2H duel and happen to have the best MAs in the tourney on your team...yet lose). Though there was an exploit of "no magic" loophole by Smurph.

I lacked a partner for pretty much the entire tourney, and it was my first tourney ever...

I'm sure if we debated it now, Charlotte, you and I would both have done much better... but it is how it is. At the end of the day, rightfully or not, you didn't win, which was all I was correcting.

Yeah, haha, I did my fair share of BS'ing that tourney. Oh well, learning the ropes I guess.

Originally posted by Charlotte DeBel
Ridiculising their arguments (with a little bit of name-calling TBH).

also, isn't ridiculing your opponent's argument par for the course...I've certainly seen other successful debators do it.

Originally posted by Starscream M
also, isn't ridiculing your opponent's argument par for the course...I've certainly seen other successful debators do it.

Maybe it's a fault, but... meh? I try not to personally insult the opponents. C-Master, as I recall, commented on enjoying the match between me, Jake, Goob and Blair because he enjoyed the sarcastic back-and-forth without the personal attacks.

Oh well... as I said, Id is far worse, probably worse than anybody I've had the pleasure (or displeasure) of debating in a tourney before. Whatevs, though. I'm not gonna lose sleep over "Team Dong".

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Maybe, but if strawmanning proves to be an effective way of wasting your opponents space and time, then it'll be a valuable tool to use in a debate. That's the bottom line, really.

If judges can't look beyond appeal to ridicule, then this does not measure someone's skill as a debater in the least. Who throws a better smear-campaign and could stoop to Quanchi's level, perhaps. It has absolutely no logical grounds for rejecting someone's argument unless actually backed up by something.

Originally posted by Starscream M
I just quickly scanned leo's posts...didn't see any name calling (can you point to any specific examples?)

also, isn't ridiculing your opponent's argument par for the course...I've certainly seen other successful debators do it.

I don't argue against Leo here, in fact I enjoy his debate and there IS a fair share of dubious stuff from both sides.
The stuff with magnetic Wooden Viking (the rebuttal of the thing) can be a bit touchy, I admit.

I may re-visit a tourney with interactive battlefields later this year. I liked the innovative plans.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
My posts are littered with argument ridicule. More so depending on whom I'm debating, but it's a staple all the same.

For me, I think the ridiculing your opponent approach is just a stylistic flair issue.

it shouldn't impact too much on judging the debating skills. One still needs to back up their trash talk to succeed. Trash talk without substance will be penalized regardless.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
My posts are littered with argument ridicule. More so depending on whom I'm debating, but it's a staple all the same.

Maybe it's a fault, but... meh? I try not to personally insult the opponents. C-Master, as I recall, commented on enjoying the match between me, Jake, Goob and Blair because he enjoyed the sarcastic back-and-forth without the personal attacks.

Oh well... as I said, Id is far worse, probably worse than anybody I've had the pleasure (or displeasure) of debating in a tourney before. Whatevs, though. I'm not gonna lose sleep over "Team Dong".

Co-sign on that, darling. The tourney talks shouldn't be taken very seriously.

In the end, Batdude will determine who will be the judges.

I have place my full trust in his ability to choose judges who value logical reasoning above the ability to ridicule someone.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Not the bottom line, at all.

If judges can't look beyond appeal to ridicule, then this does not measure someone's skill as a debater in the least. Who throws a better smear-campaign and could stoop to Quanchi's level, perhaps. It has absolutely no logical grounds for rejecting someone's argument unless actually backed up by something.

in effect, you're drawing a strawman here yourself because I don't think anyone has delved to quanchi level debating.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Not the bottom line, at all.

If judges can't look beyond appeal to ridicule, then this does not measure someone's skill as a debater in the least. Who throws a better smear-campaign and could stoop to Quanchi's level, perhaps. It has absolutely no logical grounds for rejecting someone's argument unless actually backed up by something.

It pays to know the judges tendencies as well. The flippancy appeals to some and is frowned upon by others. I look more at details, for example, and jokes don't really embellish a point if the point is invalid. For others, if you make your opponent look like the punchline of a joke it may sway things in your favor, despite an actual tactical disadvantage, if you make yourself appear to have the upperhand in spite of being in a hole. There's a lot of factors.

Originally posted by Charlotte DeBel
I don't argue against Leo here, in fact I enjoy his debate and there IS a fair share of dubious stuff from both sides.
The stuff with magnetic Wooden Viking (the rebuttal of the thing) can be a bit touchy, I admit.

I didn't see any specific namecalling (granted I just skimmed his posts). thats why I asked what he said that you considered namecalling.