The PZ Myers Memorial Debate: I Resign
Posted in Blogosphere, Humor, PZ Myers Memorial Debate on | 12 minutes | 34 Comments →In what will surely be joyous news to many at VoxWorld, I officially resign my role of honorary judge in the PZ Myers Memorial Debate [with a caveat I’ll explain at the end of the post].
There are several reasons for this announcement. One is because a contestant—internet “superintelligence” Vox Day—went ahead and instantiated his own scoring system midway through the debate without so much as even mentioning it to any of the judges. Some commenters continue to misunderstand my complaint as one over math, despite several attempts to make crystal-clear that it is not. I understand that awarding each contestant a “.5” score on behalf of my draw does not skew the debate one way or the other, mathematically. That’s not my complaint. As I said to Vox before his better half began to delete my comments, what if one or more judges disagree that Dominic’s arguments in Round Two merit the same amount of points as Vox’s arguments in Round One? I can’t speak for the others, but I certainly don’t think Dominic’s “first explanations are usually wrong” argument deserves the same score as Vox’s “plethora of testimonial evidence” argument. Oh well, what do I know? I’m just a whiner, a narcissist, a fag, a retard, an idiot, a cunt, a girl, and all sorts of other not-so-Christian things according to the upstanding “Christians” at VoxWorld.
Now, Vox Day’s overcontrolling wife—Spacebunny Day, the trigger-happy overlord of VoxWorld depicted in the satire above—has attempted to force my compliance to her ultimatum: she has actually replaced one of my comments with her own, as you can see here:
Really? Really?
See the Dishonest Atheist thread, 9/11/11 9:15pm. In the interest of avoiding unproductive back-and-forth with the irrational and emotional women who comment there, I promised that I would not respond to Spacebunny or her pal Taylor on that blog anymore. Of course, that didn’t stop either one of them from continuing their mean-spirited assault on everything and anything they could possibly imagine. He’s lived in San Francisco, he must be a “liberal fag!” So logical, and so Christian, isn’t it? It’d be hilarious if the rest of the world weren’t judging Christians on their “fruit.”
Now, the overlord is attempting to force me to reneg on my word or forego the “privilege” of commenting at VoxWorld! Ha! You’ve got to be kidding! I spit with irreverence on Spacebunny’s attempt to control me, and I shake the dust. Jesus Christ never sought to control anyone. He simply spoke His mind and left it at that. If there’s one thing I find repulsive, it’s censorship and moderation, both of which I take as signs of weakness and control issues. As you can see, Spacebunny claims her bossiness is justified because I “insert myself into the debate,” yet, as with every other claim I’ve seen her make at VoxWorld, she fails to provide a single scintilla of evidence. Of course, nobody calls her on it, after all, she’s Vox’s wife and she holds a constant itchy finger on the censorship button. I’m sure hardly any of the “Dread Ilk” want to incur her wrath, else they might lose their “privileges,” too.
So I ask my readers: did any of you get the impression that I entered into the debate as opposed to judging it? Is providing a detailed justification for one’s judgment the same as entering the debate? Did alexamenos “enter into the debate” for doing the same damned thing? Scott Scheule? I don’t think so. If anybody else sees something I’ve overlooked, by all means, speak up.
Now that I’ve been effectively banned from commenting at VoxWorld—what does that make it, ten blogs I’ve been banned from now?—I’ll have to field some of the remaining comments here:
Daniel,
The only potential quibble (and it is a senseless one) anyone could have would be that the score should be 4 judgments in favor of gods to 1 against gods, with draws not scoring.
Sure, if you want to simply assume Vox’s Round One arguments deserve the same score as Dominic’s Round Two arguments, but I don’t share that assumption. I think that if a scoring system was desired, it should have been discussed and fine-tuned with the judges before the debate commenced, not instantiated midway through by one of the contestants, where conflict of interest is undeniably present. I told this to Vox from the very beginning.
You are blazingly, glaringly, unequivocably in the wrong on the issue of the score, or of the host’s right and obligation to share it with the audience.
I disagree, and counter that you are blazingly, glaringly, unequivocably in the wrong on the issue of when and how a scoring system should be instantiated, and by whom.
It’s cl’s seemingly random objections to basic things like the current score (which is mathematically indisputable, and not something Vox formulated, in any way, out of thin air) of the debate that seem to be at the heart of any real contention.
Not at all. If you want to know the real source of contention, read my comments a bit more carefully. I’ve spelled it out clearly both here and there. Let’s talk.
Spacebunny,
… you were asked a direct question dear – by me no less, answer it or don’t comment….
Who-hoo! Yes ma’am, I cower under the authority you seem to love lording over others as the Romans did to the Jews! What was I ever thinking to ignore you? My goodness, it’s as if I actually believe I’m accountable to God and not some woman who thinks she’s something! My bad.
why do you keep trying to enter the debate instead of just judging it?
…and now a few questions for you:
1) Is whining about perceived whining somehow not whining?
2) Is offering detailed justifications for one’s judgment the same as “entering into the debate?”
3) Is it Christian to selectively enforce the rules at VoxWorld?
4) Is it Christian to call others names like “retard,” “bitch”, “fag”, and “girl?”
5) Isn’t it ironic for a girl to insult another person by calling them a girl?
Taylor,
…the little bitch, who has insulted everyone on this blog, gets on his high horse and slams all the bad Christians for using naughty words against him.
Your claim that I’ve insulted everyone on the blog is false. I’ve responded harshly to a few people, but I’ve abstained from name-calling with the exception of “trolly Nate” which was uttered more in jest than anything else. Can you say the same? Here is your very first comment to me, which directly violated Rule #5 at VoxWorld:
Apparently, you think this atheist vs Christian thing is some kind of polite word game, a let’s agree to disagree situation. It’s a f*cking war, and you’re concerned about being fair to the enemy. Fairness, magnanimity, patience, kindness only makes it easier for him to destroy you. You appear to be the tepid sort that God immediately spits out. I can certainly see how some atheists would think highly of you. cl, you’re a chump.
Rule #5 says, “You are expected to be polite to your fellow commenters, especially if you don’t know them.” You then proceeded to unleash a barrage that included the following “Christlike” statements:
You’re a hypocrite as well as a pussy […] I wasn’t even addressing you, asshole. I wasn’t addressing anyone, just stating my position. That you find it mean-spirited or whatever is not my problem. Seriously, go f*ck yourself to death, you yammering fraud […] You really are a stupid bitch and a fraud. Get over yourself, idiot.
Ah, yes… that’s the way to shine the light of Jesus Christ! So, do you speak like that to the other people at Bible study? Just curious.
Boetain,
Vox’s scoring method is flawed and should be discarded. With his method, at the end of the debate (3 rounds?) You could have a guy ahead on two judge’s cards and still lose by points. For example:
Judge 1: vd,vd,vd
Judge 2: vd,ds,ds
Judge 3: vd,ds,ds
Yes, exactly. I can’t tell you how happy I am that at least one person seems to get it. Call me clueless to your heart’s content, at least we can agree on this! Although, something tells me you won’t get called everything from “bitch” to “girl” to “faggot” for your dissent. Here’s the thing: using Vox’s scoring method, Vox is guaranteed to win unless all three judges vote for Dominic in Round Three. In that case, we’d have a 4.5 tie, which would require a tiebreaking round—else we end up with precisely the state of affairs Vox’s “Dread Ilk” wished to avoid in the first place, a draw on the whole debate—and all because Vox failed to recognize his proper role in the debate. Suspicious? Me too.
Vox,
You’re ridiculous, CL. You’re a whiner, a crier, and you’re not very intelligent. You clearly didn’t understand the obvious because you asked “So you’re awarding “1.5 points” for each positive judgment?”
Of course! After all, it just can’t be that I thought somebody as superintelligent as Vox Day would see the obvious flaws with his scoring system! You see, charity is the difference, Vox. Since you claim to be superintelligent, I assumed you were easily intelligent enough to see the problems. I didn’t think for a second that you would be so unintelligent as to award points for failed arguments, which left “1.5 points for each round” as the only plausible alternative. In the end, I guess there’s a risk with both charity and assuming everybody else is another stupid member of the ignorant masses, or a lying snake! Ah, if only I could be a member of MENSA. If only!
Because you’re not smart enough. And the idea of you accusing me of trying to act like a judge when everyone has seen you referring to your own arguments is simply absurd.
Oh, look, another exaggerated rhetorical claim from the bastion of accuracy! So, “everyone” has seen me referring to my own arguments as judge? Evidence, please? Can’t make your case logically, or without insult? No matter! Just call names and accuse others of being unintelligent! As if we haven’t seen that strategy exhausted ad nauseum at VoxWorld. Get real, buddy… get real.
If the judges wish to decide on that, they can certainly do so. But I’ve never seen any debate where the judges – or rather, a judge – has tried to stick himself into the center of the discussion like you have.
Oh come on. Now you sound like your crying wife. In fact, are you both the same person? Is it a “good cop, bad cop” show you’re running behind the scenes over there? She’s McGavin and you’re Hodges, ala “Colors”? Criticizing you for instantiating your own flawed scoring system midway through the debate without so much as even asking the judges does not entail that I’ve “stuck myself into the center of the discussion,” if that’s what you mean. Think rationally. Don’t just parrot your wife.
If I may flip this for a second, I’ve never seen any debate where one of the contestants sprung there own scoring system in the middle of Round Two without consulting the judges. Like I asked, are you a contestant, or a judge? That’s right. You’re a contestant. Let the judges keep score and judge as they see fit, lest you rightfully incur suspicion related to conflict of interest.
No one said points were awarded for failed arguments, the partial points were awarded for a draw… Are you such a blithering idiot that you genuinely think a team that ties loses three games and ties one is equal to a team that loses four games? You awarded a draw. That’s half points for both, dimwit.
Correct, Vox, you awarded partial points for a draw. Now, why did I pronounce Round Two a draw? Failed arguments. That’s right, say it again: failed arguments. Then, connect the dots: you awarded yourselves points for failed arguments. IOW, contrary to what you just claimed, points were awarded for failed arguments. Not that it matters, as that’s not even my chief gripe—at least you awarded points for failed arguments equally—I just wanted to point out how often you fail to see the obvious, despite your loud protestations that such errors are reserved for the “ignorant masses.” Next time, follow the chain of logic instead of denigrating and insulting those you see as less intelligent than your superintelligent self.
In Conclusion
I’ve washed my hands and my soul of this poisonous chimera. Now, for the caveat.
I deeply respect the patience and effort that Scott Scheule and alexamenos have put into judging this debate. If Vox recants his scoring system, I will resume my role as judge. Alternatively, if Vox refuses to recant his scoring system, and both judges award Round Three to Dominic, I will judge Round Three anyways. I’m doing this for no other reason than respect for my fellow judges, so we can at least have some semblance of consistency and impartiality, lest all our time be wasted and this debate shown for the pyrrhic victory Vox Day appears interested in making it. If either of them award Round Three to Vox, and Vox doesn’t recant his scoring system, it’s over. I don’t even need to chime in. Vox did the scoring for us.
Way to go Vox! It’s easy to win when you’re both contestant and judge!
Thinking Emotions
says...Oh come on. Now you sound like your crying wife. In fact, are you both the same person? Is it a “good cop, bad cop” show you’re running behind the scenes over there?
LMFAO! Can anyone outwit cl? I wonder if Vox Day is going to threaten to kick your ass now for insulting his wife. It won’t be long before he’s posting his address on here, demanding you show up and fight him.
Thinking Emotions
says...Anyway, just thought I’d leave that comment to express my gratitude for showing what a tactless animal VD is. You never really know what kind of a person someone is until you piss them off.
cl
says...TE,
Yeah, I found it nauseating when he puffed his chest and basically challenged PZ—by no means a poster child for physical fitness—to a fist fight. I mean, really?Grow up and get over your ego already. What would Jesus do?
Besides, if he were to ever attack me physically, he’d be in for a surprise. He seems like one of those hard external-style guys, what with the whole dominance fetish and all. It’s tough to hit wind, TE, and aggression is easily countereffected to the intended victim’s advantage—as anyone who’s ever attacked even a mildly competent aikidoka knows.
Have a nice weekend, I appreciate all your input here, despite our occasional headbutts and disagreements.
cl
says...One thing I need to make clear: I don’t consider mockery insulting. I certainly mocked his wife, but I did not insult her. Insults are things like “dimwit,” “bitch,” “cunt,” and all the other things mentioned. If I ever make missteps like that, remind me to check myself.
wrf3
says...TE wrote: I wonder if Vox Day is going to threaten to kick your ass now for insulting his wife.
No, he’s just going to threaten to not sleep with cl.
Daniel
says...Too bad. I had hoped for a better debate in the first place. Nonetheless, I enjoyed your analysis cl.
zen0
says...Having not been banned from any blogs, I salute your record.
What might the common denominator be, exactly?
gman
says...“what does that make it, ten blogs I’ve been banned from now?”
perhaps it is you?
Sharkey
says...Sayre’s law: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.”
Mr. Nightstick
says...Sorry about all this. You were a good judge.
EB
says...CL, I thought there were five rounds, not three.
joseph
says...@CL
Sympathise with you, not sure I’d want to be involved even if I was able.
However, the only ones paying attention to Vox’s arse-pull scoring system are those that would have announced a Vox Victory whatever the result.
In short I would’ve let the readers reach their own opinion, and basically let Vox entertain himself as he saw fit.
You do Aikido? Bit too fine a technique for me, plus not as common where I live.
Sweet Jones
says...Cool story bro
Hunt
says...It’d be hilarious if the rest of the world weren’t judging Christians on their “fruit.”
The trouble is, they do. There’s been many a day fighting it out at Voxworld when I’ve asked myself “why the hell am I having to do this?” If you can believe it, I was once at a point where I tried to actually talk sense to Taylor, of all people. That was a long time ago, and before I realized that you don’t talk sense to monsters like that.
You put up a good fight, and in a way have restored my “faith,” such as it is, in Christians. I appreciate it.
I do know that all Christians are not like that. It would be very nice, however, if more Christians, who secretly disapprove of them, resisted them vigorously. When others see them broadcasting their message w/o any kind of complaint, Christians have already lost the PR campaign.
The point that I don’t think I made well enough from the previous post, is that it’s important to tell these people that you don’t like what they’re saying. It’s important. I realize, however, that it’s also important to not lose your sanity. Whether it’s worth it to sink to their level and become like them — I have not quite figured that one out yet.
joseph
says...Hunt – those who stare into the abyss…
Having said that it would be a delicious place to troll, I’m honestly thinking of constructing my own taylor persona.
TruthOverfaith
says...And when the Last Supper meal was finished, Jesus turned to the disciples and said, “Boys, I think I should have passed on the cabbage, because I feel a major fart coming soon. Amen.”
Praise Jeeebus!!!
Hunt
says...“He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
joseph
says...Oh. I thought it was from “Watchmen” ;-)
taylor-joseph
says...Fuck all your hole abyss gazing homos.
Jesus hates you all, he would fuck the abyss with his double bladed schlong of righteousness, which he would hand craft himself to avoid paying tax to socialist-marxist-liberal-obama-nazi-fags like you.
I had a vision at night once where a demon visits my bedroom, and made some square cut out shapes in my Justin Bieber Bible, my fag-chiatrist told me it was my dad, but it wasn’t, it wasn’t, it was proof of christianity.
Just in case you were missing her :-D
joseph
says...This comment has been deleted – Cosmic Gerbil
cosmic-gerbil
says...@joseph
Stop using bad language you limp wristed autodidactic son of a whore dickbag, or i will skull f#ck you
jox-dei
says...@Joseph
1/Parody is not funny.
(I am a genius)
2/The judges are there for my credibilty, not to say I haven’t won.
(Mensa)
3/in my new points system joseph is awarded minus 500 points for being a dickbag, i am awarded 500 points for awesomosity
(NFL)
4/Look at the rules, they aren’t gonna be fairly applied anyway, but that’s life
(my penis is bigger than pz myer’s)
5/You’re an Atheist therefore a lying deciever.
(…and I could smack you down, you little beyatch)
Zombie
says...Wow Joseph, for a minute I thought Taylor had taken some time out of her day from committing hate crimes to find this site and start commenting. You channelled her pretty well, right down the irrational inclusion of Gay Hatin’ into the most unrelated topics (closet lesbo anybody?). Participating in any discussion on VP is basically like being in grade school again. Everyone there seems to subscribe to the idea that if they yell ‘no YOU’RE a doody head’ enough times, that the person should learn their lesson and stop rebutting. “Don’t you see that everyone here thinks you’re a moron, bro?!”. Not surprising from a guy who hillariously (and non ironically might I add) adapts Game Theory to the christian worldview
Mrs Ward
says...I’m sorry to see you leave the judging : although you didn’t notice the same problems with Vox’s argument that I saw, you did a good job of being impartial to both sides.
I wish you had used different wording, though, when you said Vox won the first round. Before the debate began, there had been a discussion of scoring : some wanting more points for strong arguments and less for weak ones, some wanting points deducted for fallacies, and some wanting outright winner for each round. Too bad you did not make your conclusion “Vox 5, Dominic 4” in round one instead of “Vox wins, barely”. Then round 2 could have been “Vox 0, Dominic 0” instead of “Draw”.
After all, you are the judge, so although people could have disagreed with your scoring, they could not have changed it. Then Dominic would have more of a chance in this final round. Even if Vox gave only won/loss points, people could have taken your point system into consideration when weighing how strong Vox’s & Dominc’s arguments really were.
I wish you had realized how much power the judges had–the commenters did, which is why they were so careful about who they voted as judges.
Patrick Mefford
says...cl,
Sorry you had to go through that, but I have to say, the entire shebang was highly entertaining. I wanted to say something about that place being a cult of personality earlier, but I didn’t want to harsh on the mellow. Now you know better!
Adam
says...cl,
I was glad that you participated as a judge in this debate. Having followed VD’s blog for so many years I have never seen anyone make VD’s arguments look so asinine! I look forward to reading more of your stuff as your blog has been a rewarding educational experience for me.
Matt DeStefano
says...I think the first mistake was assuming that Vox is actually interested in rational discussion.
wadingacross
says...You actually sat and read the debates? And I thought I could be long winded.
**shakes head at the whole thing – specifically the bickering on both parts (especially from supposed Christians)**
And the ilk from Vox’s site are free to wander over to mine – though I’m by no means uber-intelligent or can claim some credentials on that which I opine.
Have a nice evening cl.
Rollory
says...I stopped paying much attention to it when the “judging” somehow concluded that Vox proved his point in the first round. He didn’t. He made specific identifiable errors (or intentional obfuscations) of logic and nobody called him on it. I don’t need judges to tell me what to think when I can see it clearly enough for myself.
Also, the whole argument can be disposed of quickly enough.
http://oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
I notice Dominic commented “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in one of the more recent pieces, which … well, when one of the debaters thinks like that, there’s not going to be much of a debate.
TruthOverfaith
says...And Jesus said “Praise me, praise me, praise my holy name.
The rest is total bullshit. Amen, and fuck you all.”
rho
says...Accusing others of un-Christian behavior through name-calling works a lot better if you don’t sling “woman” around as an insult.
That said, I think you were inserting yourself into the debate; I also found your commentary interesting and your take on things enlightening; and I rather wish things hadn’t ended up this way.
I think a lot of acrimony could have been avoided if the debaters and judges had refrained from extending the debate into the comments.
cl
says...rho,
Were you talking about that? If so, I think you’re reading too much into it. Had I said “some bitch” or “some c*nt” like they say at VoxWorld, I would fully agree with you. That’s not the case. Had I been talking about Vox, I would have said “some man” or “some dude.” After all, Spacebunny is a woman. Anyways, the point isn’t that I’m some perfect saint whose never insulted anybody. I did call her and Taylor “hags” but that’s how they act ya know? The point is that far more often than not, I don’t stoop to that level, and I don’t ever call people any of the many names they resort to regularly over there.
In what way?
Hey thanks. Don’t worry, better things are in store, things that don’t involve a forum full of third-grader behavior.
I agree.
cl
says...Rollory,
I disagree. I agree that the argument from moral evil breached cogency, but the “plethora of evidence” argument and the “mathematical probability” argument are “evidence for gods” given the loose definition of “gods” used in the debate.
If you think otherwise, maybe you can make your case?
cl
says...Rollory,
I just noticed how wrong your comment September 24, 2011 at 10:37 PM is.
First: it’s completely irrelevant to this situation because we have a plethora of evidence for the existence of “gods” as defined in the debate. There is no absence of evidence here.
Second: if what you’re saying is correct, then 1,000 years ago we had evidence for the absence of asteroids, 200 years ago we had evidence for the absence of a LUCA, and 100 years ago we had evidence for the absence of quantum physics. Clearly absurd. Not the woman’s proof, that is, but your adaptation of it (and hers).
Zombie,
Nailed it.
Adam,
Hey thanks.
Hunt,
I believe it. I gave her the benefit of the doubt, too.
Thanks. I agree.