Out of all debaters on DART, Trent0405 is the most enjoyable to debate against.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
- 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
Enjoyable: (of an activity or occasion) giving delight or pleasure.
After reading Trent's debates, I firmly believe that he is the most enjoyable user to debate against, despite never having done so myself.
For fun, I will try to imitate Trent0405's debating style in this debate.
Simple almanac style
It is obvious from his debates that his arguments are simple, concise, to the point. They are easy to read and glance through, and excellent for both casual and serious debaters alike. The topics he chooses have relatively straight-forward definitions, so that you don't spend 5 rounds like Oromagi trying to disprove Christians are Christians. If we can supply something more succinctly, I argue it is more enjoyable, as otherwise it may be gish gallop or wasting time arguing against the same argument in four different ways. The fact that against Oromagi you potentially have to trudge through 20,000~30,000 worth or arguments and copy pasting your words to disprove you goes far to prove my point that Trent0405 is very enjoyable to debate in contrast.
Let's face it, mainstream topics are done thousands and thousands of times. You would be sick with overexposure to news, with classic topics like politics, religion, politics, religion. Come on man. Trent0405 presents countless fun debates, comparing different animals [and dogs to cats], MMA sports, boiling lobsters. Even his remotely political topics cover a wide range of possibility, as comparing countries can be way more about policy, with finance, science, living, etc. All at stake. There is a lot of different ideas that can be brought to the table, and require smarter research than big mainstream topics that can easily grab research information from procon.org or some other famous site.
It is clear that Trent0405 is the most enjoyable on the site to debate against. Even in difficult topics, he keeps his character count low and has a simple yet elegant way of presenting his arguments. He has well defined terms that prevent semantic arguments, and his unusual topics allow debaters to keep themselves on their feet. With more versatility in these uncommon topics, you have potentially much more to gain than if you already debated abortion a few hundred times. With that, I move the floor to con.
Absolutely no means of measuring fun is provided.
Trent doesn't keep char count low, he brutally stacks sources/citations and my opponent has dodged and avoided Trent ever since joining the site, implying even on a subjective level, he isn't entirely fun to debate against.
You know who is fun to debate against? Seldiora, that's why despite creating so many topics and being so experienced, people aren't reluctant to accept the open challenfes.
Con has argued there is no "measure" of fun, but there can be. Let me lay it out. Merely because I avoid Trent means it's my personal decision which may or may not have other factors into play other than just enjoyment.
Concise = addiction
We see people stuck on social media for hours on end. From here, it's clear that FB posts are best with 80 characters or fewer, description of 18 words, 70~100 characters for twitter, 130~150 characters for Instagram, 200 character limit for Instagram, so on and so forth. Now then, each of these posts' performances are in the thousands within views and reposts, displaying the power of the social media. Why would people bother if they didn't enjoy the posts, and feel like they gather attention? Now, not even Trent's arguments are as low as 200 characters [approximately 40 words], but the way the arguments are laid out, it's easy to imagine each individual backing getting thousands of reposts on social media. It would be addicting and fun to look at.
My personal writing fits the more formal essays, clear as day from my samples in debating. I doubt my long arguments would get as much reposts as Trent's from this.
Only interested people would debate anyone else
It's hard to imagine someone who is interested in every topic in the world. It doesn't make sense. No one can be an expert in all topics. This article lists three people who have gained top search results by providing short and concise explanations of science, religion, and Disney. Longer answers prove that you are an expert on the topic, but once again, if you give too much information, people may begin to raise eyes and be misinformed. Take conspiracy theorists, for example. Given only 3,000 characters, I doubt any of them could defeat Trent0405, as conspiracies are unfounded and require such massive leaps of logic. On the other hand, given 30,000 arguments worth of gish gallop, and it would be extraordinary of a chore to try to disprove each and every one of their absurd arguments.
Because DebateArt is informal enough to use usernames and not real names, I can conclude this is a casual debating site where the majority is not necessarily passionate enough to go outside of Trent's usual character limit. As such, Trent, being well informed (winning most of his debates) and providing decent topics that entertain similar to social media, he would be able to keep people's attention and prevent it from being a chore. Remember how intelligence_06 conceded a debate in the tournament because it felt like a chore. There was just so much research he had to do, so many arguments he had to prove, in a topic that he didn't care about. If he was up against Trent, he would no doubt be invigorated by the small amount of arguments, however "stacked" the sources are in Trent's favor. He would be far less likely to concede in that theoretical debate. Due to DART's nature, it's clear that Trent is the most enjoyable user to debate against.
I have yet to see any evidence that Trent is concise. It is only true he's concise in something like a song battle which isn't really him debating and is extremely rare for him.
He doesn't truky go for wild topics like Pro suggests, he farmed wins by knowing a lot of geography and history and nerding his way through country vs country debates etc.
He always uses many sources, near-full character count and does not at all leave much room for fun. It's enjoyable for a tryhard, sure yes but when it comes to actually debating against him someone as active as Seldiora himself has dodged Trent for all but a song battle.
RM tries to say Trent is full of character count in arguments but he is the only one that forces himself down below 3,500 characters, thus fulfilling the "short essay" idea and my burden of proof. He keeps alluding to the anecdote of me not battling Trent, but has given no alternative to who is actually most enjoyable. The fact that I instigate the majority of the debates means that Trent must believe I am worthy of debating, and infers I am not enjoyable enough for him to go up against.
The country vs country goes to show his specific knowledge that entertains and gives us insight on different cultures. It is more than mere policy or religion; it concerns power, legacy, impact, so on and so forth. As someone describes, Trent likes to build a remote fort and protect it. This remote fort is more fun to battle than an entire army of incredible tanks and trained soldiers, as the latter requires incredible dedication and skill, and shuts off those with lower debating ability. As such, Trent is the most enjoyable debater on this site to go up against.
Considering the fact that RM tried to negate my argument with even fewer characters than my "Trent imitation style", he clearly displays the fact that debaters like to use less characters if possible. Nobody has managed to defeat Oromagi with as few characters as Trent (except Ragnar, who is undefeated himself). It's clear that serious debaters are usually too difficult, compared to Trent, who is a more casual and fun experience.
oh crap, could've used a reminder before this came out as a tie
Lucky that I missed the deadline and forgot about this
Bad wording last round, I meant, nobody beats Oromagi, who uses way more char than Trent. Only Ragnar succeeded
if you need a source for "people spend hours on social media" in my r2, here it is https://www.digitalmarketing.org/blog/how-much-time-does-the-average-person-spend-on-social-media#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20people,over%20the%20past%2012%20months.
What it takes for Trent to start a debate: Hours of dedicated research on something probably not important at all, entire docs of sources organized into sections, as well as researched supporting sources that shows his mainline evidence are reliable and should be properly used.
What it takes for Seldiora to start a debate: Yeah this is on the TV show and it seems kinda good, let me just start it and do whatever I will.
If my sources get defeated I'd probably just change my mind and concede.
Well your style is brutal. What happens when your sources get defeated? MORE SOURCES! You just keep using sources until the opponent gives up.
ooh, the first debate about me, I like it.
It is too easy to win.
I can take this one, but I won't.
For the sake of comedy, please accept this debate
Very very subjective.