Instigator / Pro
seldiora's avatar
2
seldiora
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2239

seldiora is a bad debater

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Tags
Miscellaneous
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Intelligence_06's avatar
7
Intelligence_06
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

seldiora: me

debater: someone who argues over something, especially with other people

bad: of low quality, of having weak arguments

Round 1
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#1
seldiora/me is clearly not a good debater. The topics he chooses are completely nonsensical, such as using no good reason to try to convince con to forfeit his argument, trying to figure out that the debate is stupid, and arguing his side that he does not believe in (pretending to be Pro-life) and ending up losing as a result. Even though he has won the majority of his debates on debate.org, he choses a lot of noobs that instantly forfeit the debate. Against anyone who doesn't forfeit, seldiora/9spaceking struggles to keep up and has a difficult job working to persuade people. My research is very poor and I did not even consider global warming as an issue that could potentially defeat Coronavirus. The vast majority of my debates on DDO are on casual topics that don't require a lot of research and are very informal. 

My opponent must offer evidence to the contrary, that I am indeed a good debater. But as it seems I am a bad debater. I take topics I can't win, I take ridiculous topics that make no sense, and lose as a result. 
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#2
Challenge accepted.

Rebuttals:

seldiora/me is clearly not a good debater. The topics he chooses are completely nonsensical, such as using no good reason to try to convince con to forfeit his argument, trying to figure out that the debate is stupid, and arguing his side that he does not believe in (pretending to be Pro-life) and ending up losing as a result.
However, by that Seldiora tries new things out almost every single day and can complete them at crazy speeds and can argue about unorthodox subjects, his ability is above me. I will assume Seldiora is a male and can be corrected if needed. Seldiora has a wide span of knowledge, from programming and encryption to use logic in an extraordinary sense, all the way to music, poetry, and rap. I can confirm that I cannot rap at all(No rap battles), and my argument style is relatively traditional. Seldiora's potential in experimenting is basically infinite. Give him a few months he will probably win an argument about whether to nuke Mars or not. If he can even hold on a few rounds arguing for something he does not believe, doesn't that already mean his mind is not a total rusty fixture and that his brain can move swiftly and his ideas smoothly?

Even though he has won the majority of his debates on debate.org, he choses a lot of noobs that instantly forfeit the debate.
Oromagi noob-snipes a lot, but that doesn't mean he is bad. He is very good. Just because of the act noob-sniping existent, that doesn't mean one is bad. In fact, he would be very strategic about which one to pick in order to win. Being strategic about debates themselves is no sign of a bad debater.

Against anyone who doesn't forfeit, seldiora/9spaceking struggles to keep up and has a difficult job working to persuade people. My research is very poor and I did not even consider global warming as an issue that could potentially defeat Coronavirus.
Everyone makes mistakes. One given mistake does not make one plummet down the quality. Seldiora, although not the best of the best, can still uphold reasoning. The place where he put Global warming not as a reason is against one of the very, very best debaters on this site, and to be fair, I would be convinced. 

The vast majority of my debates on DDO are on casual topics that don't require a lot of research and are very informal. 
The past defines nobody. I have a very screwed past. Now I am here.

 I take topics I can't win, I take ridiculous topics that make no sense, and lose as a result. 
Taking a topic that one can hardly win is actually a good exercise for logic. Again, mistakes and the past defines no one, and we see here is a Seldiora that is very fierce in his logic. By my opponent's logic here, I am a very terrible debater due to all of my mistakes here.

I am done and I have proved here that Seldiora is a good debater. Don't talk bad to yourself. 


Round 2
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#3
I have many talents, but music, rap, poetry have little to do with actual debating. The ability to juggle strange topic and quick debates arguably lead to lower quality. Consider that on debateart especially, I rarely use sources unless I absolutely feel like I have to. I'm very lazy and I like to copy paste other resources to prove my point. Look at my most recent debate, 0.999.. equals 1. By all means, within real number realms, it is indeed true, math is math. But I just copied the controversial part from Wikipedia. Anyone could do that. Anyone could mention the word "hyperreal" and try to confuse their opponent with a mere hand wave.  It's very clear that my debating ability is very poor. 

My opponent argues that the past has no impact on whether you are a good debater or not, but remember what I said about Oromagi being the best debater on the site. I judged that because he got to go up against bsh1, an incredibly difficult debater to defeat, he was a good debater. He gave it his all, and learned arguments from Bsh1. However, it was proven that Ragnar is even more superior than Oromagi, as the former has defeated the latter, and has gone up against the incredible RoyLatham and prevailed. In the one debate I got, Oromagi used piercing arguments to trick my claim. I could not even manage to clarify the idea that "30,000 character rounds would be no good and too filled with fluff". Despite the fact that he just copy pasted the entirety of my argument to fill up 30,000 characters, I was not able to prove this was fluff. The evidence was right there, and I wasn't able to show it convincingly to voters. I learned next to nothing, despite losing against Oromagi. Even now, I do not know how I could have potentially had a chance.

Remember, a good debater knows what kind of topic he can take, and what he cannot take. A good debater would not argue against 1+1=2 (given the current mathematical definitions of each symbol). But I would potentially, for humor and entertainment. I value a good story over logic; this much is clear in my nonsensical "brief respite" in "con should forfeit/concede this debate". As I tend to trail off and tell stories and try to entertain the audience, I am far more suited towards comedy (especially with my tendency to troll), and as such, I am not a good debater.
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#4
Pro = Seldiora = Seldiora is bad at debating
Con = Me = Seldiora is a good debater + Pro's proof is insufficient

B_o_P = On Pro(As default if no parameters)

(Note: I am sick at the time when I am writing this text so if my logic is less compelling don't be surprised)

I plan not to do any direct refutations quote to quote from start to end but instead rebuttals by points so it is more organized, as Ragnar and Fauxlaw imply.

1. Not trying does not mean not good

This clip from the drivers, Max Verstappen and Alex Albon for the Red Bull F1 team shows that the two are driving slowly, as slow as a truck. However, that does not mean they are generally bad at driving and/or Red Bull F1 team is bad at engineering, but merely that those two are not trying to drive fast. Here is a clip that shows Max Verstappen's full potential, in which if he tries he will go MUCH faster.

In other words, if Seldiora decides not to dedicate everything on his mind to the best possible argument he could make, but merely make the argument funny enough so that the voters will find this debate entertaining regardless if he loses or not, that is still no sign that Seldiora is bad. There are occasions where he is trying to be funny instead of winning.


Now you might be wondering: Hmm, what about the lacking of serious skill? I will address it later in the debate.

2. Merit, Organization, and Spirit

Merit

Seldiora almost never forfeits, and when he does, he apologizes for it. Instead of forfeiting, in the most point where he is between a rock and a hard place, he would rather concede, and most times, even against the sturdiest debaters, he still tries to make a sufficient reason for his side.

This kind of merit is what DART needs. On the contrary, this is what a debater of bad merit looks like. Biased information, sourceless arguments, regular forfeits, they are all that Seldiora doesn't have. Literally no bad habits in general, c'mon.

Seldiora never plays dirty tricks unlike someone here. He prefers to face his opponents head-on in battles fearlessly. Although Seldiora don't consider what he should take for too much, at least he is responsible for his actions, and is not a coward. That is a good thing, right?

Organization

Another good habit of Seldiora is that he organizes points. His arguments are short and sweet, condensed with sources but do what he wants. We don't quite see this from a few months ago but recently his arguments are MUCH more organized.

This debate had him labeling the main idea of each paragraph thick-lined. This will make the voters know that those are what Seldiora is arguing for.

Seldiora uses a lot of sources and has improved in research. Remember The more recent the debate it is, the more reliable. If someone brings me some cringe call-out debate on DDO, then I'd shake my head. In recent debates, he has at least two good habits present.

Spirit

The spirit is kind of presented in the 1st: Seldiora is willing to try new things and don't hold any grudge or fear to anyone even if he was beaten. Seldiora's unprecedented debates call for less full quality than traditional ones (e.g. My opponent will lose this debate v.s. God is against Abortions) and he never fails to make them boring to read, even if his arguments are bad. The fact Pro says new topics means less quality is untrue. Although I can't say those debates are of more objective quality than normal Abortion and/or God debates, however, relatively, those new debates are unprecedented but still entertaining, which is already a good thing. Seldiora pioneered in many logical methods in DART, such as Argument encryption and abnormal logical interactions. The fact Seldiora is so versatile and has so many good habits would mean he is not a bad debater.

Even if he is not one of the best at serious arguing, his merit, organization, and spirit represented in this site still make him a debater void of evilness. His conduct is one of the best I know here. So many good habits would make him a very good person.

I rest my case: Seldiora is still a debater of morals, and he is a good debater.

My opponent defined "Bad" as:
bad: of low quality, of having weak arguments
Seldiora is a person of very high qualities, and his arguments have improved so much so that his old debates are not representative of his present set of skills. Speaking of which one comment in this section has proven that I have perplexed over his arguments in R2, which means his present growth is strong and his arguments can even impress me. I am good, right? If his arguments can impress me, he is probably good as well. Don't talk down to yourself, pal.

Round 3
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#5
con makes excellent points, however, I'd argue that the very baseline of a debater would be being able to respond to others arguments in a timely fashion and be able to organize your points in one way or another. Those who try to say "my argument is correct because this one source said so" and use their emotions are arguably not debating at all. In other words they are not debaters, and thus cannot be compared to me. I remember arguing one of my friends who thought the Coronavirus was a conspiracy. As he was trying to defeat the truth, surely I could have won a debate. He agrees on this perspective, I can definitely win an argument. But I couldn't over turn his idea, and he still isn't wearing a mask to this day. I had the support of the My Little Pony server, a group of people who watched a show about friendship and resolving problems, I had the support of Kurgzestat, a reliable scientific video creator, of even the mighty Roy Latham himself, one of the strongest debaters on DDO. But he was not convinced. Trying to change someone's mind is nearly impossible if their views are set, and hence these people who start these "arguments" are already set upon an impossible task of "Change my mind, I dare you". They lose the debate, but the opponent loses the battle. Oromagi and Ragnar could out-debate these fools, but they could not change their mind. This is the difference between the conspiracy theorist and me. 

Intelligence argues in a round-about way that infers that if I tried my best, my arguments are "good". But this vague definition is too absurd. I remember taking an English class that taught me, if I need to prove something, it is best to first state your logic or claim, back it with evidence or source, and then summarize how this supports this idea. To disprove someone, you use logical fallacies and think of ways your argument can outweigh theirs. But I have lost my prime ability to write non-fiction; you could look back at my debates, but I keep using the wrong ways to prove my ideas and can't apply this English class to my debates. I may be good at writing non-fiction in general, but persuading someone is harder. You have to ensure your logic has very holes in it (something I miss out on, as I am not detail oriented) and you have to look for any holes in opponent's logic (something I tried but am not consistently able to do). Remember, just because someone knows how to do something does not mean they are able to do this.

Conclusion: My opponent tries to come up with worse debaters but they are conspiracy theorists or biased angry people who argue ridiculous notions in more of an "outburst" than a true debate dedicated to come up with a calm and rational resolution. As such, you must use actual debate skills to judge someone like me, not compare myself to someone who mistakes "change my view" with "I will consider your points carefully". He argues that I have confounded him, but that is merely himself. Consider that I am a very emotionally charged person and a lot of points I make are nonsense and outlandish. This may be a reason why I have momentarily confuse him. But if you take a closer look and analyze my emotions you will realize I may have made countless mistakes in debate and clouded my judgement. Because I let my emotions get to me, they prevent me from applying my knowledge and result in me losing the debate. My manner of debating may be good, but we are not arguing about conduct. We are arguing if my arguments are as good as an average person's. And considering I lost against someone who is 13, while at the age of 21, it's very clear I'm behind on debating skills, and thus, am a bad debater.
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#6
1. Kritik

My opponent opened up with definitions that we are using. With his very definitions, I can push an argument out of it.

bad: of low quality, of having weak arguments
Keep in mind, "Low quality" is satisfactory for "Bad", and the opposite is "Good", which would mean "High quality".

I have proven that by merit and conduct, Seldiora is a man of quality, he is a very good person morally. My opponent likely conceded that he is a good person consider he did not pick up on it. Since he is a debater and is not a bad person, he is not a bad debater. My opponent opened up with that "It is irrelevant my morality to my debating quality, and my argument is weak", which is refutable. Note that Seldiora considers me as a good debater, so the fact I can refute him does not make him bad.

As well, I can question if he is actually debating or not. Note he has drawn a line between debaters and non-debaters, so if I can prove he is a non-debater, no matter how good or bad Seldiora actually is, he is not a bad debater. Of course, that is naught on paper. This is just possible, but I might do it. The main part is whether he is bad or not.

The third Kritik is that: If he is really bad, then he can't properly fulfill his BoP. So if he is really bad he can't even win this one.

2. Seldiora is good against all other debaters

I have proved that Seldiora is a good-hearted guy based on what he is doing, but what about his arguments in general? Welp, they are good too. For example, THAT ONE. I will not type any arguments unless it is not perplexing to me for whatever's sakes. Knowing how good I am and I only take topics I think I can win, holding off one entire day is very impressive for a debater that considers himself "bad".

Either way, I need to prove why his argument is good.

Seldiora is better than most debaters by definition
My opponent did not specify whether the debaters must come from DDO, DART, or some other place. What is the definition of a "debater"?

debater: someone who argues over something, especially with other people
Keep in mind: DART has loyal members across DDO, so it is a condensed circle of an already great community. DDO is dying now and the good debaters moved here, and the spambots stayed there. Most people should know this but if you don't, here is now.

All people just argue. This article suggests that most couples argue.

This article implies that said couples, within the norm, argue over small/shallow things such as sexual intercourse, money management within, children's decisions, etc. Barely any couples argue about deep, confusing philosophical stuff such as if one person will lose in an AI box experiment. (In fact, because I love logic I am single. All the girls just can't stand me after their egotistical brains try to convince me of whatever they think is the truth but are not and are very biased and fail because I am a Ben-Shapiro-like being out of them)

This article states that couples' arguments often are feeling-based instead of it involving any deep logic. Seldiora can not only use logic, he can use them to ridiculous extents. The norm is that most people do not use deep logic that is compelling to the average DART user. People just use Ad-hominem and similar fallacies. In other words, if Seldiora can swiftly use logic in most of his debates, he is better than the norm: Good, not bad.

On average, Seldiora is better than the norm. As that I know how more chaotic the average teenager and kid argues, Seldiora is obviously good in the social norm. Yes. Most DART users would walk away and probably lose some of their friends because they can argue so well.

3. No, seriously. Seldiora is good.

Thinking Kritik is inappropriate? Here is an actual point based on only DARTers, and Seldiora would still be good. 

First off, Christopher_best, a Vote Mod(He should know most debaters consider he constantly deals with them, so I consider him a valid authority). He considers Seldiora not a bad debater:
You're not bad at all. I think if you continue to debate and hone your debate style you would be quite good, honestly. Plus, you concede instead of forfeiting, which I always respect.
Second, let's analyze what Seldiora wrote and find the proof that he is not bad.

however, I'd argue that the very baseline of a debater would be being able to respond to others arguments in a timely fashion and be able to organize your points in one way or another.
Seldiora has his arguments organized and his response in a timely fashion. You guys can see how quickly he responds. He almost never forfeits, and unless he has to, he holds his position till the end. He qualifies as a debater.

I remember taking an English class that taught me, if I need to prove something, it is best to first state your logic or claim, back it with evidence or source, and then summarize how this supports this idea.
Let's give a proof that Seldiora just does so in one of his recent debates, especially since he thinks his English professor is correct and just.

I will also contend against my opponent's extremely vague definition of happiness. Science has already determined a consistent feeling for happiness (https://www.healthline.com/health/happy-hormone#:~:text=Also%20known%20as%20the%20%E2%80%9Cfeel,Serotonin.), the addicting "reward" that makes us go for more-- dopamine. [ in case my opponent wants a scholarly article proving this, here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958859/] 3,000 ML of Dopamine cost $140 dollars which can be injected into your stream (https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/dopamine). Depending on your body, it could last for a varied amount of time. But there you have it. Money directly buying happiness chemical. I don't know how much simpler it can get than that.
The bolded section is the opening statement: He stated his logic and claim. The italic section is his summary. Within between is the sources and explanation: He essentially did what he thought was good.

To disprove someone, you use logical fallacies and think of ways your argument can outweigh theirs.
My opponent did nothing but rebuttals in this debate, so I will use this one as an example.
Pro first stated the logical inconsistency: Just because I included non-debaters doesn't mean he is good comparing to them. Just because I am impressed doesn't necessarily mean he is good.
 
Pro then explained why his argument outweighs mine. He has stated numerous reasons why he is bad at debating, such as the inability to convince others, etc.
I am very emotional in life, but I am not emotional here. Seldiora has yet to show how he is emotional in debates because I can't tell.

Either way, Seldiora has done what his English class told him in recent debates. The more recent the more reliable for a person, so these sources are reliable.

Conclusion: Seldiora is not a bad debater.
  • Seldiora thinks what he has learned in an English class is reliable.
  • Seldiora has demonstrated his structure from said English class within recent reliable debates.
  • Since he has done that, he is a good debater.
  • Seldiora can demonstrate his ideas and sources in an organized manner, A good habit. Many good debaters might outshine him but that does not mean he is bad.
  • I have fulfilled my BoP. Vote for Con!