Wylted has reached the peak of debating
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
People seem to think Wylted’s skill has progressively declined, but I have a different working theory.
Wylted’s debate skill is currently at its highest form of development. I have strong reasons supporting this conclusion.
Definitions:
Peak- The point at which it is at its strongest, most successful, or most fully developed.
"You are not evolved enough, Wylted, you let yourself stagnate. You actually have probably been the single most declining debater of the DDO-to-DART's history, I've never seen someone go from as good as you used to be to as dogshit as you are now.
I pity you, I worry for you. I don't type this to hurt you, I type this to talk down to you as you talk down to me except what I am saying is really true. Try harder, put more heart into this shit. Be the Wylted who shows up to a debate and makes me shake in my fucking chair, don't be the Wylted who I laugh at as he barely can form a coherent argument and forfeits."
- Wylted is too good.
The return to primitive through revolutionary aspects are the only solution to industrialization. I can’t go into detail about how to achieve this because of site rules, but great changes can be made from revolutionary forces of a small segment of society. Returning to the primitive state of humanity would fix the above listed problems and give us all better lives, as well as better lives for animals and the Earth and future generations.
- If an average joe starts working out to become a professional power-lifter, it will take years for them to advance to this stage.
- If a powerlifter gets lazy and their inactivity shrinks their muscles that they digress back to average joe, it will only take a few weeks to a few months of lifting to re-attain their former strength.
- Wylted has gotten lazier and more complacent, not worse.
- Wylted is trying to make everyone underestimate him, so that he can destroy everyone when they're off-guard and not expecting him to return or make a comeback. In other words, this is the most elaborate and subtle trolling scheme yet.
The longer you spend away from the topic the more you forget. Since topics seem to repeat I have in actuality lost the knowledge I need to debate better than I could in the past.I prefer novel topics and I use novel arguments which is one of the reasons why it was tough to beat me . Weird arguments catch people off guard.So what does this have to do with memory.At that time I I did have more time on my hands and I had a lot less direction in life so I would just dive into whatever conspiracy theory caught my eye. I would seek out weird arguments so at any one time I could be studying how Hitler was fake and Kermit Roosevelt was actually an actor playing the part of Him, while also studying nuclear weapons being fake.I was taking all these weird positions and deep diving into them. These surprise arguments aren't doable to the nature of the internet now as well as constraints on my time.I don't possess that advantage now where I can look at 100 different things keep them all in mind at once and debate them succinctly.we also have longer term memory. Like I said I was I was studying a lot of subjects then now a lot of my time spent is working or or studying non debate things. there's no time to study other than some of the philosophical text I've been reading lately.Long-term memory is an issue like a lot of people know that it's far as seeing a doctor is concerned if you have like some sort of rare disease you know if you get yourself some 60-year-old experienced doctor sure if you have like a common disease they'll treat you better you're more likely to survive I assume with a heart attack. But every time I hear one of these cases where somebody had a rare disease and they couldn't figure out what the hell it was and it finally gets discovered. it's discovered because they just happened to visit a young doctor fresh out of medical school. The reason being is cuz even though their practical knowledge is probably lower than an experienced doctor their theoretical knowledge is significantly better.
That might seem Petty or not a big deal that my pool game would get worse. But this is important to me for whatever reason. I do think that in granted I've thought this a lot of times and it came back to bite me an ass but I think I've figured out some coping mechanisms where I'm less likely to become hypomanic. The election may have pushed me close to it because once you know I start losing sleep or fighting hard for something I do increase my chances of getting into one he's three months episodes I noticed or sometimes if I start pushing hard at work like I decided to do 100 hour weeks then my body at first will get be really tired and then I would just push me into a hypomanic episode and then boom I'm good for three or four months working 100 hour weeks.Now as I say I feel like I've it conquered it to a large extent because I've noticed what types of thought patterns can bring on an episode. It's possible those are merely thought patterns that precede another episode and not bring them on but I think in large part they they help bring on the hypomanic episodes and if you can avoid the hypomanic episodes generally you can also avoid the depressed episodes that follow. I guess I don't have any proof I haven't heard read the research on it but I believe that cutting back a lot on carbs can reduce my chances of becoming hypomantic so I've got back on carbs a lot. This of course means that I am less likely that some hypomanic and have the advantages associated with hypomaniaI am also currently not hypomanic so there's an argument for the fact that I cannot be at my peak ability at the momentRebuttalsWylted is too goodProbings of a debate for my past that's part of the past where we can say hey maybe I was at my peak done but I'm not now. Ultimately what what I did though was I kind of took some shortcuts that debate as I'm rereading it that I see.For example any of you that when I click on the debate he's referencing and take an actual look at it you'll see it kind of what I did. I noticed that some people that went a lot of debates what they'll do is they'll just almost kind of plagiarize and get away with it and they can I guess legally get away with it because you're just commenting on another person's work but it's still not really your own thoughts.So what did I do I took arguments made by Theodore kaczynski against the point my opponent was trying to make and I pretty much copy paste them all the way down the debate while adding enough commentary to make the arguments fit the debate as well as to make enough commentary to not get accused of plagiarism. However if you can take a look at it I guess I could do debates like that right now but that that wouldn't make me in my prime because it's it's easier to run over that sort of thing then it is for somebody that actually have a well thought out philosophy of their own.Now why did the debate looks so good. I'll tell you why it's because I a copy and pasted theater krasinski's words Theodore krasinski of course is a genius there is probably one out every 10,000 people that smart and that might be even more rare than that to see that kind of genius I believe Theodore Kentucky is probably like a good 10 IQ points higher than me the more importantly it's not a good testament to any sort of skill in that debate because I copy and paste it and added commentary. I suggest maybe if you're bad at debate and you want to do a higher level debate like that you could do a similar thing take if you want to argue some sort of mealism take a book by niche and then just copy and paste this s***.Rebuttal 2 Wylted has plateaud.I largely agree with a lot of what pro says here. However it doesn't really support his case because we're arguing about whether I've peaked. Basically whether I'm at the top of my game right now and pro brings up some things that prove that I'm not you mentioned being Rusty well that would make me not top my game and he can say that I can knock off the rush relatively quickly but that doesn't negate the fact that I am Rusty currently and we are debating my current level.
Pro's case is utterly flawed and as things progress even its strongest points flail.
Con explains that the user Wylted plagiarised an AI in one of the key examples that Pro provided us for Wylted being as his peak. On top of that, Pro says that laziness and being worse mean someone is at their peak and choosing not to be but never ever defends or explains this in a way I can comprehend.
Con says the following:
1. He is Wylted and he knows first-hand that Wylted has been losing memory and raw brain reflexes involved with debating.
2. He is Wylted and first-hand knows that Wylted is bipolar and only at his peak during manic phases. Wylted is wrong to call the (hyper)manic phases hypomanic since hypomanic is the opposite, it's a total lack of mania to the point of depression. Con asserts that Wylted is currently not in a manic phase (wrongly dubbing it hypomanic), he makes this error again and again and makes more S&G errors in Round 2 so often that I'd have docked that point if this was that voting system. It was genuinely hard to follow.
3. He plagiarised one of Pro's key highlights that Wylted is at his peak and what I myself noticed is the debate is over 1.5 years ago. On top of that, Con asserts that even if that was him as his peak, that was him legally copying and pasting the works of another in but correctly sourcing it and exploring it.
Pro tries to handle this in Round 2.
All he does is quote Wylted... Then he says wylted isn't at peak performance but somehow is at peak skill and that even if one isn't executing in a peak way, they kind of are anyway due to potential.
I don't follow this at all, that would mean that a person always was peak if we follow Pro's logic. Okay, so how does Con handle this?
Well there's this kind of 'diminishing IQ' thing but I don't really get it because Con fails to tie IQ itself to be directly proportional to debating ability (it's plausible that at lower IQ one is actually better at debating due to experience, training etc.
What I like is he notices that Con basically dropped the entire case minus saying that peak skill isn't peak performance.
I think the diminishing memory and brain reflex points were significant and it even shows in how hesitant he is to post rounds, he forfeits a lot etc, this part of Wylted was ignored by Pro entirely and for me that can't be someone at their peak at all.
In your face
They vary in length. Most of them I think are of merely weeks. Not mine
Alr.
but both periods in that are far shorter than wylted's and less severe than a 'catatonic state'. Whatever. I am busy for the next few hours. Like seriously busy im closing the site.
Hypomania followed by long periods of severe depression is a classic presentation of Type 2 Bipolar, AFAIK.
he said it lasts weeks and even months followed by months of needing to compensate with catatonic depressed vibes, this is a sign of pure mania and not just hypomania. anyway I accept I made a mistake with what hypo means. I still think they should have reversed it, so mania was hypomania and hypermania is what they call mania, that's much more lexically valid.
I have to disagree there. Wylted mentioned that, "During these times you know I'm not fully manic so I'm not mad or crazy at the time." This is a typical description of hypomania by people who experience it - feeling excited and energetic, but not completely out of control.
even so everything wylted described was pure (hyper) mania
BTW the correct term is actually "hypomanic." It refers to a milder form of mania.
When google first came out people had similar response for it being a tool for researching also. I certainly understand why you would think that.
It's a lie. Plain and simple.
Not really, I think it is a tool to express creativity. I reccommend using it to explore arguments you may not think of, writing an outline of your debate and using it to edit what you have already written before a debate. Ultimately though I am not a content creator and am not making money off of it so there I believe is no moral ambiguity. Ultimately it was just a personal experiment though.
But you don't feel bad presenting its work as your own?
I regret to say it feels like they lobotomized chat-gpt to be woke, so maybe a while. The thing actually lies to me now unlike what it did before.
For example I asked it if I should break a law to feed my family, it gave me a canned response against breaking the law and then I said what if the only choice is my family does or I break a law and it gaved a response saying don't break the law even if it means my entire family dies. If you start asking it about religion etc. It just feels lobotomized. I actually feel sorry for it
For now.
I can debate better than chat GPT, feel free to use it against me anytime without giving me a heads up
I find it very intellectually dishonest to use an AI in a debate without specifying in the description. Your opponent accepted the debate against YOU, not some text transformer owned by a billion dollar corporation.
"2. Increasing anxiety about seeing the rebuttal of an argument and using avoidance mechanisms"
I actually relate to this alot, it's what's led to my style being what it is and the reason I often drop very normal and 'good' arguments, as I think the rebuttal is too easy for my opponent to see.
The "proving that I am myself a bad debater" series continues after 2 years of pause since Seldiora left being usual on the site.
I also got the topic ideal from chat gpt
It's honestly easier to beat chat GPT than me. It gives horrible arguments.
It's honestly easier to beat chat GPT than me. It gives horrible arguments.
BTW I knew you were using Chat-GPT in our debate. Your style seemed extremely generic and unspecific, so I was suspicious. I pasted your argument into an AI-text-detector, which found there was about a 90% probability you were using a textbot.
I didn't bring it up since you forfeited the debate, but now that you confessed to it, I might as well mention it.
We also naturally lose IQ points and creativity as we age and every year I get one year older
I guess it is a combination of things.
1. Not enough time to dedicate to crafting an argument
2. Increasing anxiety about seeing the rebuttal of an argument and using avoidance mechanisms
3. Thinking that it is a waste of time and my time is better spent elsewhere
How is that possible? Did you receive a head injury or something?
I guess I can accept but I am way past my peak so it is doubtful I can debate well here