seldiora is a bad debater
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
seldiora: me
debater: someone who argues over something, especially with other people
bad: of low quality, of having weak arguments
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.
I take topics I can't win, I take ridiculous topics that make no sense, and lose as a result.
bad: of low quality, of having weak arguments
bad: of low quality, of having weak arguments
debater: someone who argues over something, especially with other people
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.
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.
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.
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.
To disprove someone, you use logical fallacies and think of ways your argument can outweigh theirs.
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.
- 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!
PRO uses more of a personal description essentially saying something like "I don't think I am a great debater since I try to use non-sensical topics to try to get the opponent to forefit". Con counters by saying how everybody makes mistakes and gives a few examples including his past as User_2006, which I consider a good argument. Con's argument really sticks because he shows that other people think seldiora is a good debator and how everybody makes mistakes. Points to CON.
Using a personal description is not bad, but I think CON should get the points for sources because he uses many examples of past debates to back up his argument. These raw debates are probably a #1 necessity in proving a BoP in these types of arguments since the resolution is about whether a debater is good or not. Con also says how the sources are relevant, for example, showing even if seldiora lost it does not mean he is bad Points to CON.
Both did well in terms of grammar and spelling. Conduct was also fine.
Why are you like this
That is no paradox. If Oro wins against RM, then that does not make RM bad.
It's a paradox, similar to "This sentence is false."
If CON wins, then that means the resolution is true- Seldiora is a bad debater because he lost. So by you winning, PRO's argument is ironically proven!
At the same time, if PRO wins, that means that he is NOT a bad debater because he won... and in turn, he has proven you correct.
You've created a paradox!
wait what did Jrob say? I don't understand.
Anyway, welcome to the site.
Intel takes everything very literally, he doesn't joke very often. I've gotten used to it
Much better!
Would my new RFD be better than the old one?
You may revote. Sorry, I got distracted and did not take the old one down.
Am I able to modify my RFD?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TNBinc // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
TNBinc
Added: 2 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in the comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2239-seldiora-is-a-bad-debater?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=12
Argument- Con fufilled BoP better than Pro. Con also backs up his evidence with reasoning.
Sources- Con used many sources whereas Pro used none.
Grammar and Conduct- both did well, no forefit.
A thousand apologies for pointing out something mildly humorous. I'll remember to be quiet next time.
The only judge is how good his arguments are. Oromagi can beat RM but that means not that RM is bad.
Well no. I have proven since I am literally in the top ten so even if I defeats him he wouldn't be considered "bad" because he could literally be 12th. and not trying
I'm unsure if this is debate is in jest - though technically if Con wins, Pro wins by virtue of proof. And if Pro wins, Con wins by virtue of proof.
I know this isn't completely true but the irony of this is bringing me to tears laughing.
bump//
Very good job with this one
Opinions?
Don't degrade yourself. You are actually a very great debater.
This is so hard to debate. Like extremely hard. It is frying my brains lol.
arguing about why you're bad. Now that is what I call non-traditional debating.
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.
If I were you, I would start using the grammar tools to organize my arguments. You can take a look at our debate together to see how it helps. I would also give observations before every round. I leveraged them to my advantage in our debate as well.
Lastly, make sure you do not drop any arguments. That's something that hurt you when we debated.