Instigator / Pro

Orogami is the best active debater on DebateArt


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

best: of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.

debater: a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner.

debateart: this website

active: accepting and/or currently participating in debates

Let's see if anyone can defeat this idea!

Round 1
Oromagi has won more debates than anyone else on DebateArt: 80+ in a row without losing. His argument is very penetrating and he has taken a rhetoric class under his belt, which not everyone has access to. His experience and his win record go to show that he is most likely the best debater on Debateart. Even on, his loses were only Bsh1 (who is now inactive on DebateArt and thus not a competition), a debate with merely one vote and thus questionable results, Imabench within a troll related debate (and thus not serious, and therefore not truly indication of his overall debating skills), and Ragnar (once again at a margin of merely one vote), who indeed has similar win rate but has not gone up against any truly tough opponent in quite some time. Over six years, Oromagi has chances to learn from his losses and improve his debating skill, while Ragnar seems to have stagnated even as a contender. Oromagi has defeated Rational Madman, a decent debater in his own right, while looking at Ragnar, he has not had a serious opportunity to truly improve his skills. -- Ragnar's opponent plagiarizes and forfeits his case -- Ragnar wins against someone with a lengthy argument, but only has two debates under their belt to begin with -- Ragnar easily refutes pro's burden of proof

Compare this to Oromagi's debates: -- Oromagi battles his opponent over multiple rounds to contest the position (this man had 10 debates, much more experience than just 2) -- Oromagi outwits another debater with over 10 debates under their belt in a completely different topic -- Oromagi uses fewer words but manages to prove his point against yet another person with more than 10 debates -- Yet another person with greater than 10 debates under their belt defeated

I'll admit, sometimes Oromagi's opponents also forfeit, but as he has accepted far more debates than Ragnar, and the examples I provided, it seems clear to me that overall Oromagi's debates have higher quality. (Keep in mind that was filled with more inactive people and Ragnar gave off the impression of Noob sniper)

Conclusion: The only debater I could see replicating Oromagi's feat is Ragnar (including DDO debates), but it seems to me, *because* Oromagi has lost against Bsh1, he at least got to know how to improve his arguments. There is a Chinese saying, failure is the mother of success. Because Oromagi had lost these handful of debates years ago, he was able to go 80 debates without losing on DebateArt, and against relatively solid opponents overall. The case stands. He is the best active debater on Debateart.

(remember that Bsh1 is inactive, so even if he did defeat Oromagi he is not applicable for this debate)
Seldiora: Orogami is the best active debater on this site
Me: Orogami is NOT the best active debater on this site

  1. No such thing

If you search Orogami on the debating leaderboard. Not only the result does not point to the best active debater on this site, it doesn’t give any user as the result.

A user that doesn’t exist on this site can’t be the best active debater on said site, can it?

My argument is done. There is no more to say. Orogami does not exist, and that means Orogami is not the best active debater on this site.

My opponent is giving information about Oromagi, not Orogami. His argument is, therefore completely irrelevant.


Round 2
My opponent tries to argue that "Orogami" does not exist merely because you can't find him on the leaderboard.

But what do names really mean? There's nothing that infers his name has to be precisely "orogami". When I use this name, it's clear that I'm referring to Oromagi, this is also inferred from my context, from the debates I presented. There is no one else with a username even close to this, anagram or otherwise. I invite my opponent to look at a site's particular reading:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. (

Even if the topic was something as insane as "it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are", and you tried to argue that deosn't isn't a thing, that waht is misspelled horrible, that wrod isn't a word, *Because* the research at Cambridge University actually showed you are able to differentiate one and another, you can still understand the debate topic without any other interpretation. As such, based on context, my opponent has to be forced to admit that indeed, I am tackling the idea of Oromagi, despite the misspelling in the title "Orogami". Unless my opponent shows that it can be interpreted as another active debater with similar username, he loses, as he presents no evidence contradicting my case.
My opponent has failed to define the term "Orogami" in the first place, thus leaving CON to the interpretation. If PRO has defined the term Orogami or even corrected that "Mistake" in the first place, it would be another story. There is no implication that I had to interpret Orogami as Oromagi. Must I associate every name I have not heard of to its nearest variant? 

"Hey pal, so there is a guy called Tenshinhan in Dragon Ball Z, is his character solid?"
"What do you mean by Tenshinhan? Do you mean Washington? It sounds like Washington so it must be Washington!"

That is the entire point made by my opponent. He still didn't prove that Orogami is, in fact, the best debater on this site. I have proven that Orogami does not exist on this site, and saying he is the best debater is like saying Tronald Drumple is a US president. Tronald Drumple is not a president, and it is simply foolish to say that Tronald Drumple IS Donald Trump. 

My opponent's BoP is literally "Orogami is the best debater on this site." No matter how our brain perceives anything, my opponent did not prove that Orogami is the best debater on this site. Unless I am having a seizure or some sort of disorder, I simply say Orogami instead of Oromagi. My opponent has made a mistake unfillable. He has not corrected the mistake nor has he defined how to perceive the term. CON, which was me, had taken the upper hand of how to define it, and I have defined that "Orogami" should be interpreted literally. My opponent only implied that Orogami can be interpreted as Oromagi, but otherwise he has not defined it. He is moving the goalpost, saying the two terms mean the same thing when they do not. One is the statistically best debater on this site, the other one, which is my opponent's BoP, isn't even real.

My opponent failed to define his keyword. My opponent has moved the goalpost. My opponent has defined the word only after I did. which counts as moving the goalpost.

I stand, proving that Orogami in fact unreal and he is not the best debater on this site. The topic is what it is and changing it midway is in itself fallacious.
Round 3
my opponent has still not negated the study itself and misrepresented my notion by mixing up all the characters together. As you can see in the title the first letter and last letter are still kept in place, and the context ensures that nobody else could have the same letters as O[romag]i. Why would I argue someone who doesn't exist is the best debater? That doesn't make sense.

my opponent has still not negated the study itself and misrepresented my notion by mixing up all the characters together. As you can see in the title the first letter and last letter are still kept in place, and the context ensures that nobody else could have the same letters as O[romag]i.
My opponent confirmed that it is indeed Oromagi, instead of Orogami, who he is debating of. This creates an inconsistency with the topic. 

My opponent has moved the goalpost, from Orogami to Oromagi. Again, similar names doesn't matter. My opponent just proved that Orogami can be perceived as Oromagi, but did not prove that they are in fact each other. Oromagi is an active debater with a perfect record. Orogami doesn't exist. 

PRO's R1 is saying how good Oromagi is, but mentioned nothing that defines what Orogami is. CON choose to interpret Orogami literally consider my opponent did not define it in any way. My opponent then changed the definition referring it to someone else, which is a fallacy in of itself. I could simply argue for Ogorami or Ogroami, in which both spellings are valid, but neither users exist.

My opponent's BoP, no matter what, is to argue for the user Orogami. He did not do that. 

Why would I argue someone who doesn't exist is the best debater? That doesn't make sense.
I do not know. However there is one thing I do know, and that is that my opponent failed to argue that Orogami is the best debater on this site, and since I pointed out inconsistencies in PRO's argument, I think it is just to vote CON.