Pro answers Con's five questions about debating style : follow up

"1. What is your real position on these issues:

-1. Abortion

-2. Acting on homosexuality

-3. Trans people transitioning

-4. People being vegan or vegetarian

-5. Atheism

-6. Capitalism

-7. Islam"

I believe I may have said this on this platform before. It's my code to remain anonymous or keep some level of anonymity.

Simply being to deter individuals from putting me in a box upon debate. They will tend to argue based on a bias reading into my arguments, postulate my arguments based on the bias. Some will prepare arguments based on what they perceive of my stance and project of it. So that's how they'll argue.

Now it's not full proof because people tend to strawman anyway. Some have prejudged me just based on forum topics. Likewise with you. I think the same has been done with you hence that topic thread I put forth.

Some say I'm weird or strange but that's as with anything that is unpopular or in the minority.

Even though you are liberal I believe, you're pushed into the eccentric zone because the positions you've taken in debates have gone too far liberal.

But you're just shining light on the path of liberalism making consistent arguments in positions going liberal.

Liberals in mainstream have not accepted that and tend to reject the opening of pandora's box.

But yes in answer to the question, I remain anonymous to not add to the fuel of deliberate misrepresentation.

"2. In previous interview, you said that in debating, you have to be ready for everything. So how would you deal if opponent presents facts?"

That comrade is an excellent question. It's like I said with the 2 plus 2 not equaling 4 dilemma right. It's a fact 2 plus 2 is four. Now I won't go too in depth on this because even though you are operating as an interviewer here, you too act as an opponent given the circumstances.

Whether you thought about it or not, what I say here you may use for later against me so I won't help to prepare you. This was a sharp enough move by you though.

When presented with facts, you're pretty much presented with something that is indisputable, irrefutable, not debatable.

It's unquestionable , is that right?

Well you will have to move the debate into arguments over meta reality or meta-realism.

I heard some try to argue nothing is absolute. Then the challenge is to prove that as that would be contradicting unless someone states that as a matter of opinion.

I'll leave it there. That's as about as much as I'll go into that. I suggest to research the rest on your own including any topics I've been involved in that put me in such position.

"3. You said "When the opponent expands I contract. When the opponent contracts I expand.".

What is exactly expanding and contracting in your opponent's arguments? How do you know which is which?"

The expand and contract I was referring to what Bruce Lee said. What he meant was being able to adapt or more or less wing it instead of pre-planned moves.

So that's what I do. I argue based on the position of the opponent's points. I don't have pre-planned points . You notice pre-planned points when you have covered possible rebuttals in your opening statement and the opponent comes back to use the rebuttals you debunked in advance. The opposing side was not prepared for anything else. Like in chess you're thinking several moves ahead, in this it's several counterpoints ahead.

I can explain what I mean by a word and because the opponents were not prepared in seeing a different definition or a definition they did not have in mind,they claim you never defined a term. They didn't get the expected format so the claim is out there a word was not defined. Really, they did not read or poorly read the text just skimming over,glossing over language looking for the expected format. Upon not seeing it,the poor judgment is made that no definition or explanation was given. Something as simple as such and such IS this and that . That's not even recognized until I point it out to the opposing side reiterating over and over. Then the other side comes back not even admitting what they missed perhaps still not understanding what is being said. Then all this effort is put forth to argue over definitions. Two things at least that aren't debatable. Those are opinions and definitions.

They claim you moved the goalpost. In order to move the goalpost,I have to show you where the goal originally was. Not you show me. It's my goal to my topic. This is what I mean by arguing the individual's position you're debating.

Many actually don't do it, can't do it so they craft their own to argue as it's easier and definitely possible and a sure pathway to refute.

So we can learn this much from true debating behavior, false debating, true countering points, rehearsed talking points. Many don't truly debate me on topics because I go too unconventional, they can't adapt, can't argue on their feet and therefore can't argue my position and can't be honest in conceding.

Many are dishonest in debating . That much is learned also.

"4. Your style is based upon using facts and sticking with them. What is your main inspiration for seeking facts? Is there a certain way you come up with facts or discover them, other than what people would usually find true without a doubt?"

I don't think there's an inspiration. It's just the name of the game when debating. In order to have a super tight position that can't be refuted , your best bet is the consistency of facts. It's much easier to be invalidated, countered and rebutted when several holes of inconsistency can be poked in your case.  That's why facts are the way to go. Doesn't mean people won't reject them though. They'll still say you're wrong with the facts in hand saying you're just claiming things.

Right I'm claiming facts. I stake my stance to a claim on a fact.

"5. You said that you dont use sources, but rely on facts which are already known to people or have been observed by people. Are there disadvantages of using sources in a debate, other than that sources can be wrong and can harm the truth?"

Yes the disadvantage is that it just perpetuates the idea and falsehood that showing what somebody has written is proof of something . So people will in tradition conflate "sources" , written documents of what other people tell you with evidence, something you witness directly.

I notice in these debates, that has been gotten away from, empirical value.  Somebody telling something isn't proof of anything other than proving that somebody telling me.

A written "source" is proof of just that. Proof of somebody that has written something that you didn't make up yourself.

While on the subject, I want to say this about dictionaries. People tout them as the "end all be all".

This is another example about thinking of things in depth. What comes from dictionaries? What is in them?

What's there comes from individuals such as you and I. So to tout it as a source to argue with, you're arguing with one of the constituents of the source trying to pit the source against itself.

A dictionary is a social consensus and it is based on the ever changing dialogue of the use of words that you and I use day to day that shape definitions to get put into it.

Another thing about facts, you realize what the facts are, where they are, how far they expand and connect to everything like a grand web of a network.

You see this by viewing things on a grand scale which is too big to fit into box thinking as I mentioned.

"1. Do you ever debate with yourself by taking two opposite sides and trying to think of arguments for each and countering them?"

No . I have argued from both sides but not against myself.

"2. When you debate, do you try to convince voters or just present facts?"

I just present facts and the facts convince or just makes someone come to a realization. One thing about facts, they don't require a persuading nature. Recall what I said about rejecting facts. The reality , parts of it are refused due to culture, taste and preference.

"3. What are the things your opponents do which you hate?"

There's nothing I strongly dislike or hate. It's not that serious to get emotionally wrapped up. I did however mention about the fallacious things that they do.

"4. What causes you to respect an opponent?"

The individual is doing the same thing I'm doing. Making a case such as I for me to debate so I have to take it significantly for whatever value it has in order to do that.

"5. What are the main qualities of a great debater?"

Just those I mentioned. You actually have to argue what the person's position exactly is. You do so based on the context, exact wording that person is using. You're consistent with that and your arguments.

To sum it up you got to have integrity and of course it pays well to be well versed in what you're arguing about.

Stay away and avoid fallacies. It pays well to learn about the different types of fallacies so they can be identified when present.