What is your debate style?

Everyone has a certain way in which they argue. Like chess, some people play aggressive, while others opt for defense. 

You don’t have to go into explicit detail about what tactics or strategies you use, but in general, how would you describe your debating style? 

I do not have one and that is what makes me incredibly good at it.

If you think I am just offense, that is just recently here because I noticed that most voters respect and value rebuttals much more than original contentions.

I can sweettalk most, when it really counts. I have a silvertongue of sorts. I am an incredible negotiator and such... when I want to be.

My background in live debating definitely informs my style in written debates, though I can't say that the two are identical. There's certainly a parliamentary style to my debating, with the aim usually being to tell a story with my arguments (meaning they rarely function wholly independently of one another) and try to focus on generating substantial impacts. That being said, my arguments are usually the weakest aspects of my debates, and I tend to play more offense than defense, focusing chiefly on rebuttals, either knocking down or turning arguments in my favor. I also tend to emphasize things like the framing of the debate, the burdens involved, and focus on crystallizing the debate at the end, so while I can (and do) often get bogged down in the details, I try to keep an eye on the bigger picture.

I am not sure if what I do counts as debating.

I upset people by posting retarded and weird stuff.

Its fun for me.

I do sometimes put more effort into it.

Sometimes I spend weeks writting the dumbest things I can think of.

I write everything down.

I guess the key is never to give up. Well, I did become lazy lately.

I am like that old man hiding in the bush and throwing poop at people who pass by.

I spent months studying the thoughts of leaders like Mao and Kim Jong Il. They were good at upsetting people, and the method of "learning from the best" usually works.

Did you just confess to trolling?

They’ve always been pretty open about it.

Relaxed and satirical.

For written debates, my first goal is to entertain the audience, followed closely by being informative with research.

And yes, I really hate it when an opponent proclaims that I haven't convinced them, therefore I must be wrong. I show the audience why they are wrong, and the smarter of my opponents revise their thinking.

Of course my in person tactics are vastly different.

I certainly don't waste time doing stupid things like "entertaining the audience," or "telling a story" (using a face interpretation of them respectively as they could just be gibberish upon reflection). Of course, the two respective users that observe these courses of actions both ran away from debating me, so I wonder if that is indicative. 

Question was what your style is, not what it isn't. It's like you're trying to seduce a woman (or man) by pointing out some dudes you're not like, constantly, the whole first date.

I don’t like beating around the bush or sugarcoating, I’m direct and in your face with verifiable fact based truths. Even the kind that hurt, but it’s still the truth nonetheless. 

I’m also quick to call you out for either being dense on purpose or being incredibly obtuse. I have little to no patience for ignorant people and their dead horse mindset. As such, I’ll only beat the dead horse for so long before walking away and letting it rot. 

That being said, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they have the requisite emotional and intellectual intelligence to engage me in a debate/discussion, until they prove me wrong (9 out of 10x they always do), then the above kicks in. 

I try to be polite. I've migrated more towards regular argumentative essays lately. 

How big do you think the audience is.

I haven't checked lately, but the average used to be about 2.5.

I engage in psychological warfare tbh. I'm not ever too kind about it either. Don't really bother with facts or stats or studies because for the most part I don't have them, but I have a sense of things and that's enough to work with. I am probably pretty unkind about making out the difference there with other people. I am always at all times trying to collapse world views. I'm taking a sledge hammer to the supporting beams of a building. I'm fascinated to watch the thing fall down. Honestly I'll read your next 20 posts after I've interacted with you. I am watching the effect of my words. 

I should probably apologise for all that. Probably a bit fucking psycho. Nothing anyone is writing on here matters and I am treating it way too seriously.

I also probably will not engage with you at all unless I feel you have the requisite intelligence to be changed. 

I actually ran all of my debates from DDO that I could find on webarchive that weren’t forfeits on Claude a few months ago just to see what it would say. It said that I’m good at weaving together disparate points into a coherent, almost inevitable sounding narrative but prone to exaggerating things and also to getting pigeonholed into arguing things I think matter a lot but don’t play to a general audience which I agree with.

It also agreed that I was being dishonest in my drug legalization debate with Danielle which she accused me of at the time (if you ever see this Danielle sorry lol.)  

What subjects are you studying recently? 

I enjoy debating you, as your resolution ideas are interesting and original. They are never generic or cliche. 

So you’re more about hyperbolic story-telling and manipulating perception? 

Some interesting thoughts on humans/animals, materialism, platonism, body, mind, soul.

But I don't really 'remember those too well, couldn't understand them quite.