Best debaters?

Author: Checkmate ,

Posts

Total: 25
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
Regardless of ratings, who are some of the best debaters on this site and why. (I say regardless of ratings because at this point, Oramagi isn't being over taken, even if some have the potential to be as good, if not better)
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 2,612
5
9
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
9
11
--> @Checkmate
There's a lot... Whiteflame is of course a contender for the top spot in my book, Blamonkey also is immensely talented. I'm not sure I've seen Ragnar go full strength, but I hear he is really solid as well. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 710
4
3
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
3
9
--> @Checkmate
Whiteflame is up there. Fruit inspector is also seriously good. Ragnar hasn't been taking super serious debates so he's only had to display a small portion of his power, but his depth of understanding of burden of proof really sets him apart. Undefeatable may not be one of the best, but for a guy who will post a 9,000 character argument 30 minutes after his opponent's argument he does pretty well And is already above 1600. TheWeakerEdge has really honed their formatting And I think it's helping him blossom. There's others.
Undefeatable
Undefeatable's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 122
0
5
11
Undefeatable's avatar
Undefeatable
0
5
11
--> @MisterChris
I think his early Star Trek debate from DDO might be one of his best showings. Other than that though, I agree with your testament. You're definitely one of the best on the site too -- despite my attempt to crystallize my point, I ended up stabbing myself in the end and you won. Let's see if you can do it again!

MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 2,612
5
9
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
9
11
--> @Undefeatable
I appreciate that. You're definitely up there as well (at least on the philosophy debate we had, you were definitely on par with the likes of Speedrace). Looking forward to our cyber debate, as it will help me gauge how well you do with policy
Undefeatable
Undefeatable's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 122
0
5
11
Undefeatable's avatar
Undefeatable
0
5
11
--> @MisterChris
I also think Fruit Inspector is tricky. I offered a seemingly reasonable plan with help of a friend about Disney and representation of minority, but fauxlaw currently is swayed to his side. I'm surprised at the kritik of implementation because I didn't think it was that kind of debate.

25 days later

Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 202
0
3
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
0
3
7
--> @Undefeatable
Happened to see this so I thought I would comment. Not directly related to best debaters but it deals with tactics. I don't think it was that tricky of an approach. I simply recognized that the argument came from a worldview derived from Critical Theory. So while my arguments were practically directed at your plan for Disney, they were fundamentally directed at the underlying presupposition of Critical Theory.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 3,350
4
6
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
6
10
One of my best debates, engaged 7 months ago with Rational Madman, ended with my loss on a single vote by Ragnar. I felt certain of winning the debate, but was voted down on a very simple, and, as I have learned since, practical and true argument from RM, which Ragnar judged to be significantly convincing by R2 and R3 consistency, to wit, "it's up to the debaters to market their debates." That was a profound argument I've come to agree was a winning argument. Many are aware of my dismay of no-vote ties, and I have a leading share in them, but RM hit the nail on the head: there would be less no-vote ties if the debate was made more interesting by proper marketing, i.e. draw the interest of voters to read the debate. Convincing argument must be entertaining to read. Even the best argument may fail if interest in the argument fails.

Therefore, I nominate Rational Madman as a best debater. I agree with other nominations made.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @fauxlaw
You are a very strong writer, it's just at 'strategy of debating' you need to refine, in my opinion.

Thanks for the nomination. ;)

To me, on a site this small, it's a bit problematic to directly 'name the GOATs' as those left out will feel bad, it's also why I didn't post here since my return. It is just a drama-pot.

People who care if I respect them as debaters can ask me, in private.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 3,350
4
6
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
6
10
--> @RationalMadman
Thanks. And, as for your return, I welcome you back.  Yes, you are frustrating, at times, to debate, and we've had a few, but isn't that the challenge, after all? I consider you an adversarial friend, and wonder why we are not, for the site, friends. I've sent a request for such, because I do enjoy our debates, win or lose. 
I have just engaged a new debate with Theweakeredge. I'd appreciate your perusal, and potential vote, as we engage
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
You just blocked me...
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 3,350
4
6
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
6
10
--> @RationalMadman
Corrected. Sorry.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 28
Posts: 3,191
4
6
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
6
10
Best debaters in my opinion in no particular order:

Oromagi
Whiteflame
Fruit_Inspector
MisterChris
Undefeatable
RationalMadman
Fauxlaw
Athias

Probably some I'm missing, just some I could think about off the top of my head
gugigor
gugigor's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 45
0
1
7
gugigor's avatar
gugigor
0
1
7
--> @Theweakeredge
nice list. I think you also are a very good debater. Pending to see how versatile you actually are, since you mostly seem to be about morality. Gun Control was mostly badly chosen topic for me in my opinion haha
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 28
Posts: 3,191
4
6
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
6
10
--> @gugigor
That's the key isn't it? Not letting anybody know how versatile I am until I need to
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,526
3
3
3
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
3
--> @gugigor
@Theweakeredge.

The key to good debating is having the time to do it......And nothing better to do.

Which you will come to realise, when you have adult responsibilities and wider interests.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,439
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @zedvictor4
The key to good debating is having the time to do it......And nothing better to do.

Which you will come to realise, when you have adult responsibilities and wider interests.
So what's your excuse? ... ... ... ...

The key to good debating is the capacity to identify, understand and proceed accordingly as it concerns the fundamentals of an argument. Seldom do debaters (here) exhibit this capacity. Usually, as far as my experience goes, they regurgitate something they've read, or make some haphazard allusion to a "source" or "logical fallacy," without truly demonstrating a grasp of that which they argue. With that said, there are a few debaters here who do exhibit and have exhibited the aforementioned capacity. And while I'm not sure that anyone has exhibited enough to merit the superlative, I do respect a couple of the names mentioned in this thread.



zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,526
3
3
3
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
3
--> @Athias
My "excuse" is that I am too busy.

And I agree with what you say...And achieving such, takes time and application.

I generally look at my computer for an hour at breakfast time and then forget about it for the rest of the day.....Better things to do.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Athias
they regurgitate something they've read, or make some haphazard allusion to a "source" or "logical fallacy,"
And that's about ten times better than most discussions (where they flatly refuse to cite sources and have never even heard of a logical fallacy).
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,439
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @3RU7AL @zedvictor4

@zedvictor:
My "excuse" is that I am too busy.
I knew what you meant in your last response. Just taking the opportunity to poke fun.

@3RU7AL:
And that's about ten times better than most discussions (where they flatly refuse to cite sources and have never even heard of a logical fallacy).
I rather have discussions with those who can employ their own reasoning rather than those who merely cite sources in lieu of an actual argument. Citing sources can be important in some contexts, but it's been my experience that most of those with whom I've had discussions bear no intention to either read or watch sources, much less read or watch them carefully. The discussion typically regresses into a battle over sources which bears a disadvantage in that the author of those sources do not argue back, or provide counterarguments to criticisms. Sources help inform arguments, but it's still up to the arguer to provide context  and demonstrate how the information of his/her citation applies to the affirmation or negation (or neutral?) of the proposition he or she is discussing. Few understand this.

I rather a indulge a discussion where one's mere response is "because I said so," than one where I'm compelled to read a 50+ page study, only to find out later that the source was entirely misrepresented because the person who made reference to it didn't read it carefully. Furthermore, having discussions with those who use sources as shields ("Talk to the source") can be quite a vexing experience as well.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Athias
I rather have discussions with those who can employ their own reasoning rather than those who merely cite sources in lieu of an actual argument.
I agree.

Unfortunately, most people don't even know what the word "AXIOM" means.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Athias
I rather a indulge a discussion where one's mere response is "because I said so,"
This is the perfect argument.

...than one where I'm compelled to read a 50+ page study, only to find out later that the source was entirely misrepresented because the person who made reference to it didn't read it carefully.
That's more of a meta-discussion.  When I encounter someone who doesn't accept what I believe is blindingly obvious I look for another approach.  Citing an "official" source is a good way to gauge their interest in the discussion and their ability to read a source critically.  I really don't care as much if they think the source supports my argument or not.

Furthermore, having discussions with those who use sources as shields ("Talk to the source") can be quite a vexing experience as well.
I find it more productive and interesting than "because I said so".
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,526
3
3
3
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
3
--> @Athias
And I don't mind a bit of fun poking.

That's why I miss Mr Ethan in the mornings.

Regards.

39 days later

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Coal and Danielle deserve mention here.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,455
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
@RationalMadman

Thank you, but remind me again why you are blocking me?