Instigator / Con

Pro answers Con's five questions about debating style


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 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro

No information

Round 1
You are someone who has done over 300 debates on this site.

Here are my questions for you:

1. What does your debating style consist of?

2. When you write argument and counter argument, is there any specific process you use in making them?

3. Are there topics you would never like to debate?

4. Do you sometimes get tired or bored of debating?

5. What is your advice for other debaters?

Alright thanks for having me on your show.

In answer to the first question, my style is like what Bruce Lee said. He didn't believe in styles. His philosophical answer in one of his films when asked the question " what's your style? ", he answered " my style...  you can call it the art of fighting without fighting".

In another scene from the same film he expressed to have no technique . Being ready for whatever may come. When the opponent expands I contract. When the opponent contracts I expand.

See I argue based on the opponent's stance which I notice others tend not to do because of a rehearsed line of argumentation. Instead of thinking on your feet being impromptu , you're able to be side swiped with somebody coming up with a seemingly impossible stance to refute.

Such as that 2+2 equals 6 hundred something fiasco spectacle.

I base my stance on the specific topic, strict wording and any applicable reference material such as a biblical passage.

Next question yes. When I make an argument it starts with a common fact,common knowledge, something based fundamentally whether accepted or not. See because facts are rejected by some. That just is what it is. Some just don't want to be wrong period even the facts tell them no. They just don't want to be wrong. I build things with fundamentals. Things people can see for themselves. That's what a lot of these debates are about, proof and facts.

This is why you may notice that's my only source material for the most part in my debates.

Sources and links to sources don't prove anything but what somebody has written or said at one time. That's all it is. When you are locked in the box, you don't see that. The majority are in the box.

So I provide proof, something you have seen or can see or experience for yourself. That is what proof is. It's empirical. If you follow all that, so many I debate don't get that.

As far as counter arguments, it's just like I said regarding Bruce Lee. He developed an art called " Gung fu" I believe. Explained as way of the intercepting fist or foot. You seek an opening or "counter" to attack.

It's in the very exact words individuals use that lands a counter hit to make their argument collapse.

From inconsistencies to contradictions self refuting arguments committing a seppuku position.

Even with you and others, maybe you don't notice when you try to counter what I say by saying I said something specifically, it doesn't counter successfully. Maybe you don't realize that you're confusing your personal interpretation as being my specific words. We gotta be careful to not misrepresent. Sometimes it's a deliberate tactic to build a strawman you know you can tear down yourself. You know all its weak points, of course you know where and how to tear it down.

Alright to the third question now.

Yes there are topics I don't go for . Particularly trivial and opinionated. No sense in debating opinions. Simply being , in debates you're proving something to be true. People's opinions are automatically true to them. It doesn't have to be for me. So what am I arguing with it for?

Answer to the fourth question is no.

My advice to other debaters really depends on what they're looking to do.

That's how I advise anyone on anything.

It always starts with these questions when someone is looking for advice on anything. It comes down to your own goal.

First question, what do you want to do?

Next, why do you want to do it?

How do you plan to do it?

Ultimate question, what do you expect the ultimate result/constructive result to be?

Say like me for instance as a debater, what do I want to do in debating?

Well I want to present edifying information.

Why do I want to present edifying information?

I can use it. Being that I can use it to improve all things constructive pertaining to my existence, others can use the same and with the lack of it in some areas of life, this platform will be used to contribute in picking up the slack.

How do I plan to do this?

Selecting topics that focus on misperceptions of reality, shedding the light on actual reality that will take individuals out of ignorance that is part of the catalyst in diminishing them.

What do I expect the constructive result to be?

Individuals will think better by being more exposed to the truth of reality, have a view of life differently outside a box that was otherwise dampening their existence but now have an expanded healthier scope and life that they thought they had but now know they indeed have than ever before.

So it comes down to individual plans . Any individual I interact with, they would have to start with answering those questions. Unless they have something specific they're requesting advice on in pertinence to debating or anything.

They may not even have it down packed, the answers to those questions and they may want to or have to start there. It's introspective comrade.

Thanks again.