Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
anc2006
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Anonymous03
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Backwardseden is a good debater

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2019 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 273 times Debate No: 123031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

anc2006

Pro

He has reasonings. He is just misguided.
Anonymous03

Con

Misguided how? Backwardseden has terrible conduct, An important quality to being a debater. Plus his arguments are barely coherent, Yet another strike against him. Finally, Backwardseden posts the same topic and argues about the same thing again and again, So this wouldn't exactly show a wide range of knowledge from a seasoned debater.
Debate Round No. 1
anc2006

Pro

First, Being a bad manner doesn't make a mean general stupid, When he had been planned 20 wins against the opposing force and has shown the IQ for 169.

Let's take one for example: Ignore all insults, And only focus on its logics.

(note, He only lost his debates because he had bad manners. Backwardseden isn't one of the best debater, But he is somewhat higher than average. He is somewhat good with logics. )

(also note, Attacking theists doesn't mean he is a bad debater, Because that is his profession, What he loves, Even if it is not useful to the society. He is just using his brain as what he likes. This is not defense. This is common respect for average people. You don't blame Darwin for most of his life proving evolution and offend a few conservative Christians along the way. )

"https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Evolution-is-proven-fact. -Religion-Namely-judaism-Christianity-And-islam-as-examples-are-not/2/" This is one of his debates. Ignore insults.

"* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=SPkCc0GXF9s - "Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria - PBS Frontline"
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ubD-wdvgvaQ - "Dan Rather Reports Addicted to Antibiotics"
Dan Rather "Every year more than 90, 000 Americans die from similar infections that are resistant to antibiotics. That stunning figure is higher from the death toll from AIDS, Car accidents and prostate cancer combined. "
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=zENv5EDElgA&t=481s - "Antibiotics Resistance Documentary""

I'd compare him to Hitler. He is not good for a human, Because he is bloodcold, But that doesn't change the fact he is still somewhat smart. This nebula guy on the other hand used 3 or even more sources to prove ONLY A SMALL PIECE of the large picture, Showing how good he is at constructing ideas and utilize sources. Like, Who would think of viruses when proving evolution is more evident than some religions? On this site? Backwardseden is the only one I've found, And the people likely is about 2-5, Which isn't a lot, Consider there 90M Ps4 users in the world.

"Evolution is proven fact
* Antibiotic resistant microbes, Better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. "

Like it or hate it, He's spittin' straight facts here. You don't just "hate" backwardseden because you gotta. You only hate people appropriately when they can barely do anything, For example this guy: https://www. Debate. Org/12InchBeef/ yes.

Backwardseden is just a logic person. He doesn't have sympathy too often but he sure can construct arguments to a subject, Especially atheism and evolution.

And note, If the opponent answers silly he does too, But if the opponent is worthy he would still be worthy as his max extent.

And I cannot show you the whole debate here because after the opponent is silly, He ended his nobleness.

And oh yes, He can debate things other than atheism.

"https://www. Debate. Org/debates/There-are-no-definitive-correct-way-to-play-a-musical-instrument/1/" This is my experience with an even greater debater, Called Zapshe. Backwardseden only exists in chat, But even then it was not bad.

""I'd like to see someone play a solo with their teeth on stage, " Oh that"s easy. Jimi Hendrix did it with his guitar all the time.
"Or by throwing pebbles at a piano. "
That"s easy also. John Cage did it and so does Einstruzende Neubauten.
"It's not about whether or not you can get sound, But if you can actually play a piece or not. "
Now you are REALLY confusing because dare someone try this to a concerto by Mozart? That"s a contradiction. "

This is his OK argument in the comments about music.

Conclusions: Backwardseden is not a bad debater. He is kinda smart and useful. If a man is rude, Change his mind is all it needs. But if the ma doesn't know how to portray his idea through text, Then it is experience's gate for him traveling long. He is experienced and know how to debate, And that is better than being non-experienced, Even if he is good in heart, As a debater. He is a failure at life itself, But he had shown good skill in sole debating purposes.
Anonymous03

Con

Well, I'm surprised that we're even continuing this debate, But I'll continue to advocate for the point that backwardseden is not a good debater. Regardless of what I'm about to say, I thank Pro for being devil's advocate and showing me things I've missed in my crusade against this person. I have seen some fragments of a debater behind the mass of filth, And for that I thank Pro for constructing quite a different image of this person. What an interesting perspective!

Now onto my substantive.

Pro opens by saying that 'being a bad manner doesn't mean a general stupid when he had been planned 20 wins against the opposing force and has shown the IQ for 169 [sic]'. Well I did not say that his terrible manner makes him stupid (though, As I'll elaborate, A whole bunch of things that he does kind of lowers my opinion of his intelligence); I merely pointed out that his terrible conduct makes him a bad debater as conduct is important for a discussion to occur in the first place. If you cannot allow for an environment where you can have a reasonable and thoughtful discussion, You aren't the best debater.
Secondly, He doesn't have 20 wins, He has 4, And has lost 99 and tied 75 debates. This gives him a winrate of 3. 88%, Which is both abysmal and further suggestive of his being a bad debater.
And finally, I'd love to see your sources that backwardseden has 169 IQ. He doesn't. His youtube channel suggests that he is mentally retarded. You'd think a man with that intellect would move to an actual house and have a job instead of ranting about sh*tty music from the 1960s. You'd think a man with 169 IQ would actually mention that fact once or twice but not once have I seen him saying so, Nor am I gonna sift through the pile of garbage that flows from his fingertips onto the digital world in order to find such a quote.

Pro then places his next few arguments around the theme of 'backwardseden has good logic' (and notably concedes that 'backwardseden isn't one of the best debater [sic]', Therefore kind of giving up the debate here). He asks that the reader ignore 'all insults' and only focus on his logics but when you strip all insults away you have a bare-bones series of simple third-grader level nonsense. He has entire paragraphs or in some cases whole debates based on bashing his opponent personally. The sack of sh*t doesn't even debate in half of his debates. Is it at all reasonable to expect anyone to just ignore something that is a main feature of his debates and actually is the main reason as to why he's a trash debater?

Let's see what Pro puts forth to support this logic point. 'Evolution is proven fact. Religion namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam as examples are not' - ah, You pick one debate out of many and then put down backwardseden's OPPONENT in order to say that backwardseden is the superior debator. I will concede that he showed a mild level of intelligence and perhaps some logic in constructing some of his points - which also applies to the other debates that you showed me - but hear me out. This is half of one of his debates:

'Can't read. Can yah? Nope. That's because your cabbage batbrain has been caught between your noodle waste toxic chew toy where fire ants nibble at your you know where areas to give you a new high. Now you go back and you READ what was stated. K snookums love toy because who gives a flying pregnant fetus f--k what you had to say which has absolutely nothing to do with anything? '

Huh. I'm sure this marvellous man would be examined by adjudicators in a real debate and seen to fit the standard of a good debater. There's absolutely no way you can just say 'this man has good logic and therefore he is a good debater' because that's what all debaters do, Put forth decent points, And if he just spewed insults he wouldn't even be a debater at all. 'The man says good points' yeah and the sky is blue, You kind of have to mix some sanity into the pile of garbage so that people don't ditch this mental case as someone who they shouldn't pay attention to.
This doesn't at all change the fact that some of the time he just ditches all logic and personal restraint and just belches out pages of incoherent rambling.

Your next few points are similar to the first one, You mention debates in wihch ya boi eden said some decently coherent points. Pretty amusingly you point out that he can debate something that's not about religion by saying that he was present in the comment section of one (which doesn't prove your point). I reiterate: Yeah he said some good points but most of his stuff was rambling garbage. Isn't that objectively what creates a bad debater?

Conclusions: Backwardseden is a bad debater. He is good at typing walls of text but little else. If a man is rude, He cannot debate, As they have changed the conversation from a debate to a sh*tshow. The man is older than most people on the site for f*ck's sake, He is a sad sack of sh*t that just nuts on his keyboard every day because he has nothing to do with his life. He has not shown any skill in debating purposes as he has not participated in a logical, Coherent debate in his entire life, And that shows. I mean I see that you see that this man has no life, I'm not saying that you don't know that, But what you have there as evidence for him still being reasonably competent just doesn't work.

I'll be looking forwards to what'll be no doubt an enlightening R3!
Debate Round No. 2
anc2006

Pro

First, You agreed that He used logic to debate. That is it. You know that many debaters just spam nonsense over like the Franklin guy rivaling me all the time.

I agree Backwardseden is not perfect as a debater, But he at least construct evidence better than most of the debater.

There are no need to say more since the last round mean nothing to me.
Anonymous03

Con

I'll keep it brief too.

We agree that backwardseden uses logic to debate. Pro tries to say that this puts backwardseden above others who spam nonsense but really what constitutes nonsense? This franklin dude was trolling you. Not putting in effort at all. That isn't even within the scope of this debate - trolls aren't debaters period.

'Backwardseden isn't perfect a debater' - I'd just like to add to that point. Unlike some people all of Backwardseden's debates are not intended for trolling - they're all genuine attempts at debating by the guy. And they're all pathetic, usually more than half of them being filled with nonsense and the rest basically the barebones sort of logic a third grader could put together.

It doesn't make sense to compare a terrible debater to a troll then just say 'look he's better than trolls who literally don't even debate, he's better than the majority so he must be good'. He's not. He's a bad debater with terrible conduct. Course he's better than trolls but he's a terrible debater in general. Pro agrees.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Anonymous03 2 years ago
Anonymous03
Huh and apparently I'm triggered when you're the one going to all my debates and spouting random crap about me. It looks like you fell for my bait. You're just a little too miffed about slanderous terms yourself, Aren't you?

Little miss keyboard warrior can't keep their hands off the computer. They just have to have the last say.
Posted by InfakeWars 2 years ago
InfakeWars
You're one to talk Anonymous03, Your last debate with me contained nothing but slanderous terms.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
yup I found is youtupe channel too, Haha!
Posted by Anonymous03 2 years ago
Anonymous03
i got his youtube channel from Our_Boat_Is_Right
it's called nirvanaispus

and oh boy is this middle aged thing a sad sack of sh*t
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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