Instigator / Pro

Mall is the worst 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 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
Contender / Con

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.


active: still debating and/or interacting with members

Worst: of least desirable quality and performance

Round 1
The description will serve as the first round in addition to my commentary.

As the majority of Malls debates begin similarly as such, it becomes evident that the lack of a case and arguments result in a severe disadvantage. No other debater does this on a regular basis. It is evident that Mall’s quality as a debater is the worst on DebateArt. After all, what is worse than no argument?
From Mall's spirit rapper to you all:

Kritiking there being any worst active debater at all.

The question of a 'worst' is more complex than best. Statistically, we can't deny that Oromagi is the best because when it comes to 'best' there become clear-cut ways of deciphering it. That said, to some I (Rationalmadman) am superior to Oromagi because I take more topics and come up with more creative angles in general. To others, Ragnar is superior to both Oromagi and myself because he has even beaten Oromagi a while back on

These concepts don't truly explain anything about a definitive best but what I want you to understand is that the best is still vague despite being far clearer than the other end of the spectrum. When discussing the worst, a virtually infinite series of dilemmas occur. The first dilemma is whether or not a certain severely low stat (such as Rating/elo) is to be weighed as more detrimental than refusing to readily create debates. The second dilemma is why they are bad, are they setting out to be and holding back on purpose? If so, is that worse than the one who is trying and still sucks? The third dilemma is potential to snowball later on after they improve, because like a weak horse that you're betting on in the long run to improve over time beyond the rest, Mall may be a god tier debater in the making.

There are far more dilemmas than I can type here, they genuinely approach infinity in the amount there are.


Noticing and appreciating what Mall brings to the table

In later Rounds, I'll defend against Pro's attacks to Mall, for now I'll simply appreciate him for what he is; a creative and enthusiastic debater. We see only Seldiora being superior to Mall at rate of debate-creation, meaning if it wasn't for Mall many who have risen above him couldn't even have risen at all and shown skill in any Rating-based sense. This is not the same as saying a bad player showed up and happened to be preyed upon, I am saying that in percentage of debates that have happened whatsoever to enable debaters to rise and fall in the ranks, Mall is an extremely significant factor and gives topics that even when they are mainstream are angled differently and much more about exploring the ideas than simply 'insert your mainstream arguments here and have a normal debate'.

Mall has forced a well-respected debater here, Ragnar, to actually have to try hard and put out a lot of character count and effort into explaining how and why Hitler was a racist. While Mall lost, he's beaten me when I underestimated him. The voter who truly secured this win for Mall was Oromagi, one of the best there is.

Mall defeated me on a topic we had already debated before and I underestimated him and lost. This shows potential for him to improve over time. He is in fact so open to improving and learning from his mistakes that he has allowed this debate to exist and has created 2 debates to understand his flaws.
Round 2
Mall's poor winrate overall despite his efforts, and his questionable ideas put severe problems in Mall's debate skills. He asks whether Hitler was a racist, inferring he is a holocaust denier. He tries to assert that random people online may not be as pro-life as they think, despite the existence of pro-choice. As Oromagi has noted, his topics are not particularly debatable at all, especially the following:

I'm on trial/what is the problem you see with me?

A weak basis for atheism.....

Pornography and Prostitution alike

God and Santa

... So on and so forth. Once again, no other debater has been so consistent with debate topics that have no definitions in the description, and poorly worded premise. Is he supporting the idea that God and Santa exists? Is he supporting the belief in God and Santa? We don't even know until we read the debate. The fact that some people have lost to him does not prove they are worse. It is possible they were fed up with his conspiracy theory ideas and were too angry or lazy to continue debating. It is entirely plausible that his manner of debating is so atrocious that they were unwilling to continue against his tendency to ignore arguments, and then continue his same argument except NOW IN ALL CAPS. Shouting does not work in a formal debate match. It is counter intuitive to conduct and the very nature of debating with manners. Mall also has zero sources in all his debates, forcing a severe credibility hole in all his arguments. This is a severe problem, especially as source is worth 2 points in voting, and evidence is necessary to back up unfounded claims. 

Conclusion: Mall's debates are nonsense and the way he sets it up is contrary to debating notions, displaying how poor of a debater he is. His premise in debating are always very extreme and difficult to support. His unwillingness to back up with sources or more trustworthy arguments and resorting to SHOUTING show that he is indeed the worst debater on this site. Some people may have lost to him due to other possibilities, such as personal issues, mood when taking the debate, or simply giving up due to Mall's inability to tackle his opponent's arguments head on (and often instead asking countless questions).

I still see a complete absence of means to determine who the 'worst' active debater is. Thus, my kritik remains untouched. In Round 1, I explored alternatives ways that the one who happens to currently have the lowest Rating could actually be valued above those with higher Ratings. With Mall, a primary way he has unique and significant value is his rate of creation being so huge vs others (meaning he's one of the most valuable contributers to the Rating system remaining valid, since without him debates simply wouldn't be happening nearly as much and Ratings wouldn't be increasing or decreasing). Another primary value he has is creative angles and willingness to go places in his devil's advocate stances (or real stances) that no one else will go, such as questioning someone on whether or not they can prove that Hitler is a racist. These primary core values remain totally and utterly untouched by Pro, not even acknowledged as existence let alone rebuked.

As for secondary values, Mall needs to be assessed in his potential to snowball and improve over time. You cannot simply base the value of a player on their current value, not even their current projected value.

There is a concept that expert stock-and-share investors know of (as do sports team managers and other such people) which is 'buy low, sell high'. In other words, if you start analysing factors outside of current stats, which will combine with the stats by in a more abstract way, you can begin to predict massive fallouts vs uprises in companies, as well as specific products and players etc. Mall shows 'sell high' value and is certainly currently a 'buy low' candidate. His superficial value appears low but when we observe that he not only has defeated me but keeps pushing Oromagi and Ragnar, two prominent and highly skilled debaters, to produce extensive high-character-count Rounds in order to handle Mall's unique way of taking on points and questioning things others would not even think of, it shows that he has potential to massively snowball over time, meaning his actual skill level and ability to debate is there but yet to be fully unlocked.

What is 'worse' is merely down to one's interpretation of superficial values.
Round 3
Con contends that merely because the position is there, means that Mall can't be seen as the worst. However, performance is highly important, as well as actual display of skills. I have convinced and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that "9spaceking" is a better debater than I am, despite the fact that I am him but years in the future. Why? I care less about winning. I take up impossible positions and poor definitions, proving the idea of a bad debater. Consider if, I defined "the worst debater on DART = Mall" in the description, this is surely both horrible conduct and bad debating, as I have noted the premise is the conclusion.

From my examples, I have asserted that a user who does not exist is the best on DART.  I had failed to properly define the Chinese slang of "single dog" versus "single noble", the very key idea to the debate within the show I can I BB. The fact that I only win 30% of my debates, in contrary to 9spaceking's 50% rate over 300 debates, goes far to prove that my quality of debating has declined severely. My bad definitions give an example of why Mall's lack of definitions are bad, and lead me to lose. Taking positions I do not believe in leads to my concession, and lead me to lose. If you are a good debater you are able to know the opposing arguments, you are able to understand a premise and explain it well.

Mall does none of these things and is a bad debater. He is the active worst, due to his conspiracy theories requiring countless effort to prove. Consider if he asked a hundred questions trying to go against a truism, that I am 9spaceking. I would feel pressured to prove the similarity of behavior, debate style, so on and so forth. "BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. YOU ARE NOT 9SPACEKING" He would say. I personally think that the only reason that Oromagi and Ragnar are spending so much effort is due to trying to actually convince him, because believing in Hitler's fascist and radical ideas can be dangerous, and intrude real life problems. Their character count is not a display of whether Mall is actually good at debating; it could be whether or not he is difficult to convince. I personally have extended thousands of characters to prove to my friend, that Coronavirus is not a fraud, because I care about him and he does not listen, even though he is a poor debater. I borrowed Roy Latham's help and still could not outwit him. (proof of Roy) This does not mean he is a better debater than Roy Latham. To the contrary. The fact that he is unwilling to accept reasonable sources and logical arguments shows ignorance, similar to Mall's lack of reliable sources and ideas. He just keeps rejecting, and rejecting, like a conspiracy theorist. He does not debate and tackle the arguments head on to show what is wrong with them. That is why Mall is the worst active debater on DART.

Thanks, and vote for pro. 
We can see absolutely no means of determining the worst debater is provided by Pro.