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.
Debates will be numbered.
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?
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.
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
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:
- 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)
- Having wins with people that aren't as good is a bad trait
- Trying to make a civil and fair discussion is a bad trait