Long form debates

Author: Nemiroff ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 8
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 232
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    Ive noticed many debates here take a long form with drawn out definitions and prefaces. It may just be my small mobile screen size but it seems people do alot of extra work to make simple points. Every premise gets its own preface. 

    I understand the situational benefits of each of those, and the necessity of all those features in official academic interactions. But i was assuming this was serious but casual. 

    Is the long form style encouraged? Agreed upon before hand? Preferred by voters? Cause tbh, i usually skip reading those and would likely respond in a comprehnsive, but shorter form. Will that be frowned upon?
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 10,280
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    --> @Nemiroff
    Unless there are req against it, you want to prove your case as best as you can by dragging on sentences, building up arguments and increasing their length. A good debator can crack these arguments very easily if it is the average blammer that goes on with this wall

    if you take the time to look sources, challenge each sentence, you can crack their wall and take down their argument they make. If you don't, they are more likely to win debates and such, especially when answering to a K(which you should never do cause K's are dumb as hell)

    You should build strong points with lots of evidence and little explanation that gets to the point and briefly explains so that's its a straight up titanium wall that can not be torn down vs a tall wall made out of a mix of wood, brick, and bits of titanium. 

    In my DDO Prime (debate prime), that is how debates were won. Now I don't have time to do those long, dragged on debates
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,570
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @Nemiroff
    We all have our preferences. I hate line-by-line out of context replies (they're even worse if in the opposite reading order). However, I also hate the absence of organizational headings, of which some debates have too many contentions.

    I am glad for preambles, but I often skim right past them. I'll go back to them if a debate is really close, to consider the precise definitions, but otherwise I assume common usage English.
  • Trent0405
    Trent0405 avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 376
    2
    8
    11
    Trent0405 avatar
    Trent0405
    --> @Nemiroff
    Well I don't do debates past 4000 character limits, so I guess we are on the same boat here.
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 232
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @Ragnar @SupaDudz @Trent0405
    @Ragnar
    Absolutely! I hate those sentence by sentence repliers. They make a conversation impossible to conclude, just gets longer and longer and more off topic. I usually just reply to their weakest point or the only one that stays on topic, but that took a lot of bad debates to figure that out.

    @Trent
    I usually leave most of the setting default, but if you ever want to join one of mine let me know and i'll lower it.

    @SupaDudz
    I don't see how dragging on sentences and building on length helps your points. If anything it could expose more weaknesses, and bore more readers. Sure if the concept is complex, a detailed explanation of sufficient length is needed. But most of these debates seem full of unnecessary formalities the likes I would expect in an official paper I would hand in at school or a corporate/government document. 
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 232
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @Ragnar @SupaDudz @Trent0405
    @Ragnar
    Absolutely! I hate those sentence by sentence repliers. They make a conversation impossible to conclude, just gets longer and longer and more off topic. I usually just reply to their weakest point or the only one that stays on topic, but that took a lot of bad debates to figure that out.

    @Trent
    I usually leave most of the setting default, but if you ever want to join one of mine let me know and i'll lower it.

    @SupaDudz
    I don't see how dragging on sentences and building on length helps your points. If anything it could expose more weaknesses, and bore more readers. Sure if the concept is complex, a detailed explanation of sufficient length is needed. But most of these debates seem full of unnecessary formalities the likes I would expect in an official paper I would hand in at school or a corporate/government document. I guess I'll just have to wait and see how it stacks up with voters.
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 10,280
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    --> @Nemiroff
    I never said it did. It just makes a taller wall to tire out the debator

  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 232
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @SupaDudz
    Or give the smart debater an easy win by letting him kick the tall argument in the shins and make the whole thing collapse.
    I dont think you have to respond to every single thing in order to win the debate. Especially when the actual title of the debate is quite narrow.
    I do think i misunderstood your comment. :P