Instigator / Pro

Undefeatable is not a Good Debater


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 7 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

I asked Und the other day why he was losing so many debates. He admitted he thought he wasn't a good debater at heart, but didn't want to put another debate with his username on the line. He explained his reasoning to me. I asked him if I could create a debate about it, and he said sure.

Poor quality: Inferior or mediocre in quality

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

Good debater qualities: The desirable qualities of a good debater include the ability to speak clearly, think quickly, clarify arguments, provide examples, maintain persuasive speech, and maintain a professional tone and body language. In addition, a good debater should be knowledgeable about the subject area and construct arguments that will persuade the target audience.


Round 1
Thanks con. As mentioned, this is a constructive criticism and meant to improve debating skills, rather than an attack (for example, had the premise been worded "he is a bad debater" or something similar).

1. Inability to prove the truth

There are certain fundamental truths that are trivial to prove or even assert, such as 1+1=2, Earth's Global geography, basic syllogisms, so on and so forth. Without fundamental truths and assumption, entire society falls apart and debates cannot even begin. How can we even discuss ideas, when even basic truths must be proved? However, Undefeatable is currently losing a very debate on Flat Earth Theory, with even garbage irrelevant space time theory agreed by Con himself to outweigh the proof that Pro offered. As Physics stack exchange explains very logically, the flat earth theory is a conspiracy and ridiculous to even think of.  All news sources and studies support this fact. As a Conspiracy chart explains, Flat Earth theory is just as detached from reality as flat earth theory. Yet someone like Oromagi was able to uphold his position on the leaderboards and successfully prove that Qanon was BS. Keep in mind that we have already established that me/seldiora is not a bad debater. So not even I was able to prove a conspiracy, yet somehow, Undefeatable failed to refute Flat Earth theory. Therefore, Undefeatable cannot possibly be a good debater.

2. Dependency on Experts

Undefeatable's biggest problem is ironically too much dependency on authority. As Whiteflame explains in the systemic racism debate, he ironically depended too much on experts and somehow muddled individual vs systemic racism, despite the fact that the two are interconnected with each other. The so called "separation" is merely to distinguish the idea of particular individuals named to be racist, versus the overwhelming impact of "systemic" level of racism. So not only does Undefeatable stab himself in the foot, he also largely fails to rely on his own ideas. For example, imagine I used appeal to authority and tried to prove climate change being a big problem by citing Leonardo Dicaprio:

Climate change is real. It is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating.”
Leonardo Di Caprio, Actor & Environmentalist
What does this tell us? It just tells us that a famous actor is telling us that climate change is real and the most urgent threat. But it fails to show us actual impacts, nor does it tell us why we should trust the Oscar nominated actor. Similarly, notice how Undefeatable in vast majority of debates takes big quotes from experts [with the racism debate being a prime example] and fails to deliver the killer, explaining how he lost the systemic racism debate, despite having over 20+ expert sources. Unless Con can show me another debate where one side cited 20+ experts and still lost, this is only a testament to how bad Undefeatable is at presenting sources. 

3. Most of his wins are only when opponent doesn't even debate

How can you be a good debater if the only times you win is when the opponent doesn't try? That's like saying I'm a good boxer because whenever I step into the ring the opponent looks at me and just says, naw, I'm not up to it, and just walks away. Looking at Und's debates, the vast majority of them are forfeits or concessions by the opponent's side.

4. He instigates most of his debates

Out of all the top positions on the leaderboards, the only person who instigates the majority of his debates is Trent0405, and even he resorts to lesser known topics in order to keep a high win rate and successfully argue positions without overly relying on authority. Yet Undefeatable takes formal well-known topics and willingly gives himself a handicap, which in turn worsens his debating skill. The accepter of a debate has a massive advantage, especially that they are allowed to choose and look carefully at the debate before taking it. This explains how Und. is able to lose even truism debates. Undefeatable's position is severely weakened, as he gives his opponent the last word, and reduces his debating skill as a result. Look at how Oromagi and Ragnar carefully curate which debate they will take, and managed to win nearly 100 debates without losing (Ragnar including his DDO debates). They are able to know what judges would think, and know how to best persuade based on opponent's weaknesses. By contrast, Und. only takes a position that he thinks is reasonable on both sides, rather than setting up to win the debate. As he clearly didn't create his account to actually be "Undefeatable", it's clear to see that he has similar intentions as myself to improve, rather than highlight his debating prowess. As such, he cannot currently be a good debater. Even the way he sets up the debate makes it clear that he is trying to become good, and is only mediocre at best.
Let us begin.

Interpretation of the Resolution

Undefeatable is not a Good Debater
The terms Debater and Undefeatable have definitions which both parties agree with, however, there is no adequate definition, yet for the term "good". As a result, the next best thing is to use the qualities given by Pro in the description section in which that a good debater usually possess, which are: "the ability to speak clearly, think quickly, clarify arguments, provide examples, maintain persuasive speech, and maintain a professional tone and body language." Note that this is an online idea-exchanging forum, and not a concrete-built auditorium, hence the qualities "Speak Clearly, Maintain a professional body language" are to be excluded, as we have no method of proving that Undefeatable can do any of these, based on that he is only active online instead of in a theatre.
  • The phrase "Good debater" is present, so as long as I prove that Undefeatable has ANY or ALL traits given above, CON wins.

Argument: Traits

Debates will be numbered.

Think Quickly
One of his debates, 2614, adequately demonstrates the speed that Undefeatable can come up with arguments. Every single argument in this debate, written by Undefeatable, was being replied within a single day. On the other hand, Theweakeredge, which is a strong debater also, took a day or more per argument, yet his arguments still failed to trump Undefeatable.

His R2 took him less than 2 hours to write, and it contains expansive things within that argument, including metaphysics and philosophy. We have no reason to believe that he sat in front of a computer for a full 1:40 hours, but the fact he is able to see the flaw in Theweakeredge's argument perhaps right away makes it true that if Undefeatable tries, he can think quickly. In the end, Undefeatable won 2614.

Clarify Arguments & Maintain Professional Tone
Do I even need to give evidence?

Nevertheless, 2793 had us seeing Undefeatable making organized arguments within 3 organized points, with him NOT talking subjectively when mentioning crucial evidence, and only talking in first person when sharing the burden of proof. Everything above can be seen as professional(Common sense, am I right?)

Then, as if I really need to say it at all, Undefeatable clarified his 3 arguments.

Provide Examples
A well-known debate, 2765, can be seen that Undefeatable made distinctive cases regarding the use and benefits of virtual game-labs as well as general authentic evidence regarding that video games aren't bad as well as that they bring some benefits. He can give authentic examples regarding the topic he is arguing, and he did a good job, instead of a mediocre or awful job at that.

Maintain Persuasive Speech
Persuasive speeches can be anything from an argumentative essay to an informal debate[a]. However, basically everything Undefeatable does are persuasive speeches. We are here to debate, right? Every single example I have given above contains Undefeatable not only maintaining persuasive speech, but actually making them persuasive, by, of course, having adequate examples to support his arguments, clarifying his arguments as well as maintaining professionality.

Overall, I have proved that Undefeatable illustrated all of the traits Pro has given that would make a debater good.

I ask my opponent to disprove that Undefeatable fails to do any given one of the traits given above. If there is no valid criticism among the topic, then Con easily wins.


1. Inability to prove the truth
Pro uses 2838 as an example, which is a debate in which Undefeatable is strained by a subpar character limit(500). Proper structure would be near impossible in a 500 character limit as a single sentence as a title would take up about 1/5 of the space, if the sentence is 100 letters long. Also, Pro assumes that Undefeatable is losing this debate, which is not the case, as Undefeatable is currently winning 29:21.

I do not understand what Pro is saying for the rest of the paragraph, but considering if Pro is not a bad debater, and Pro is scared of debating Undefeatable(2785), then it would be more likely that Undefeatable's ability is superior to Pro and Pro is afraid that he will lose.

2. Dependency on Experts
Pro's example, 2780, has Undefeatable using over 24 authentic sources in R1, however, Con of that debate, Fauxlaw, also used over 10 for each round except for the last(which still uses one), with Undefeatable using none at all in the last round.

Either way, one case where he failed to present relevant proof isn't enough that Undefeatable is bad, as he can provide reliable sources in other debates. I have sourced them before.

3. Most of his wins are only when opponent doesn't even debate
Same with Ragnar and Bearman. You can't call them bad, can you?

4. He instigates most of his debates
The fact he is trying to be civil is a trait of being a good debater(Professionalism), and a debater doesn't have to be setting every single of his debate up to win to be good(I demand this evidence from Pro).

Overall, I have proven that Undefeatable fulfilled all the traits Pro has given to be a good debater.

Unsupported ideas from Pro:
  1. Having a bad day automatically decreases the ability of a person, regardless of what the person can do in their good days(I say this, as Pro gives single examples as arguments for his debate)
  2. Having wins with people that aren't as good is a bad trait
  3. Trying to make a civil and fair discussion is a bad trait
Vote CON!

Round 2
I concede.
Pro has conceded. Vote Con.
Round 3
you spin me right round baby right round
Undefeatable is a good debater.
Round 4

  • Undefeatable satisfies all the traits Pro provided for a good debater.
  • Pro’s criticism falls flat when the fact that single-examples are used as arguments is being taken into account
  • Pro concedes that Undefeatable is a good debater
  • Undefeatable is proven to be a good debater
  • Vote Con