If blue steel was still active, she would almost certainly beat oromagi in a non troll debate
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Bluesteel: the user from debate.org
Pro must prove that bluesteel would win beyond a shadow of a doubt
Bluesteel has said to been one of the best debaters on debate.org. Orogami has been beaten multiple times before, by Ragnar, Bsh1, and even the mostly unknown
soumya_a_thomas. (I will not mention imabench since it was a troll debate). Bluesteel has proven herself countless times that her ability is at least at that level, if not better. She is so incredible that she defeated Thett3 (https://www.debate.org/debates/Rape-Penalty/1/) who defeated bsh1 resoundingly (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-ought-to-guarantee-Universal-Healthcare-to-its-citizenry/1/). Bluesteel's losses might look comparable to Oromagi on the surface, but the first one concerned a show and was 9 years ago. The second one was also 9 years ago and was against Danielle, a very skilled debater in her own right. Finally, the third debate was only lost by merely 1 point, which seems very narrow, and could have been a tie.
Oromagi admits he has taken no debate classes and only semantic. It's clear in his debates he mostly picks lower opponents to defeat, and uses an aggressive approach. However, Bluesteel's arguing style doesn't offer as much holes to poke and is harder to attack. Mikal, a prime example of a noob sniper but also excellent debater, managed to get 9,000 elo on Debate.org, but got completely wiped and had to concede the debate. (https://www.debate.org/debates/Bluesteel-v.-Mikal-Resolved-The-US-should-adopt-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-similar-to-Australias./1/) He wasn't able to stand up to the burden of proof and his arguments were ineffective.
Bluesteel's arguments may be a bit mechanical, but she has a lot of experience in debating a wide variety of topics. Knowing Oromagi's piercing nature, she would likely not accept a shaky premise and debate something she knows well about. As Oromagi does not have as much experience with formal debating and famous topics against a practiced debate, it is almost certain that he would get crushed.
My opponent is ignoring many factors about this
Instead of listing them all, I am going to write a few sentences to explain a plethora of details and factors missing from Pro's depiction of events and measurement of skill in the debaters.
Firstly, over time debaters have become more skilled, not less and this is because there's more old ones to learn from as well as the fact that on DDO it was true that people tried less hard in general with only a small handful out of the masses who didn't FF etc. Here, in DART, the percentage of tryhards is higher, yet Oromagi thrives with not just 0 losses, but 0 ties as well. Oromagi wasn't a vote moderator like bluesteel was for most of his career (I'll give sources and proof in Round 2 if I get called a liar) so his climb can't even be down to corruption. In fact, the second and third place guys on the leaderboard (Ramshutu and Ragnar) are being outgrinded by an opponent who was never a vote mod like them nor has the social sway that they seem to have.
When we are talking about how to measure skill, we need to remember that this event takes place today, literally now. Bluesteel has not only showed complete diminishing activity and drive to debate over time but her description on the website is sarcastic and troll-like (it says she only cares about being sexy, implying that the owner of the account is probably a guy making fun of women). On top of that, we have to realise that Oromagi has snowballed over time in both his work ethic and ability at debating, while bluesteel undoubtedly has done the opposite.
It is a fact of human nature that work ethic and practise are required to keep you at your peak (regardless of innate IQ or talent at what you do):
Knowledge can be studied, but skills you desire to learn or improve must be practiced. You have to practice - to do - skills in order to learn them. This is because, generally knowledge is something you learn mentally and abstractly, while skills involve some amount of physical coordination, or experiential learning to take place. Skills are connected to the world and allow you to manipulate the world, while knowledge is more intangible. Skills you can learn include: how to speak in public, how to build a house or fix a leaky washer on a faucet, how to make a web page, how to ask out someone on a date, and how to cook a meal. You can learn such skills or others in a class or group, or from a description printed in a book or web page - but they won't help you and you won't learn them unless you practice them.
This is from a website dedicated to helping people break addictions and improve their lives.
damn, didn't realize Bluesteel was getting kind of iffy. Maybe I should've chosen RoyLatham instead. I conede.
RM said that debators tend to be more skilled as they become on DART more. For me, the opposite is true I think.
After a little sleuthing, I finally found my old account. It's in a lot better shape than I remembered it. (80+ debates. Holy shit!!!)
Who are you on DDO though? I had found only like one debate on an account named Jeff Goldblum.
Man, everyone name-dropping these DDO legends takes me back.
Neatly I got to have a non-formal debate with RoyLatham over Facebook awhile back. The subject was something like any criticism of Trump is a call for his public execution...
I doubt I could beat RoyLatham on any topic. That dude was incredible
No personal attacks were used in this debate.
1) that's not what obligated means
2) I don't really approve of personality debates. Either we're elevating or disrespecting fellow debaters, creating friction, factions, and fractions in our little DART community. Can't we find more interesting topics to discuss than ourselves?
3) I think voters should approach debates with as much impartiality as possible and VOTERs who have some interest in the debate should recuse themselves. Obviously, I could not possibly impartially judge a debate in which I am a subject of debate.
4) I'd prefer to see fewer debates of this nature in the future.
you are obligated to vote in this debate.