- Win ratio
- High school
- Political ideology
- Life priority
My motto, which has been generated from a random quote generator: "Going insane strengthens an open mind."
Unlike some who preach Wikipedia, I preach Merriam-Webster.
-I believe in the separation between the account and the IRL person. This is why doxxing is bad here. Accounts should be treated as a projection of the person using it, not the person itself. The account could say anything the person does not believe in, and that is perfectly OK and logically non-contradictory.
-It is a debating site, not a campfire-talking site: well, the main selling point here is the debates, not the forums anyways.
-If you try to be honest, then don't expect to leave without your ass beat unless you are really strong. I will try everything within my capability to win, even if that means dirty tricks, semantic maneuvers and absurd worldviews(If needed, I WILL justify racism and sexism, although it was never needed, and I wish it would stay that way forever).
-Any strategy, no matter how dirty it is, should be able to be deployed in order to win, as long as it does not damage your long-run benefit(for example, doxxing, hacking and violating the CoC ultimately gets you banned, which decreases the amount of points you can gain for the short term, which is undesirable).
-If the statements presented by the opposing side benefits you without them knowing, then you should agree with them even if that is a sacrilegious behavior(And if you REALLY love your religion that much, then losing debates is not a big deal I guess then). I am not religious.
-The purest understanding of a debating topic is through grammatics and semantics, since topics are presented through words, not abstract ideas through clarivoyance. Commonplace scenarios worth nothing unless they are in the presumption. Failure of definition is one of the biggest L's you can have as an instigator, unless you can somehow make up for it.
-The evidence is a lie, there is only structure.
Unless you come up with a wording precise enough, I will keep avoiding the problem. You can block me if you hate it.
New Addition 12/23/22
-It is hilarious to see people getting stunned by "You can't make new arguments in the last round, it is bad conduct!" 3 points is worth more than 1. As to why I don't do so, it is because it is usually unneeded. Nobody needs nukes when airplanes suffice.
-"Kritiks challenge the assumptions of the topic." Sure yes sure, as if there is any assumptions at all. Nopity nope, I do not see any, mistres and misess.
-I don't know what a logical fallacy is, but I know when I see one.
New Addition 12/31/22
-If someone opens you a door on a flat field of unspecified size, following him should be your last remedy. If someone offers you context for a debate outside the basic assumptions of what the topic could mean, don't treat it as the only class of cases to be considered.
-Some wows when I run criticism on the topic they haven't seen, but have I? No. Out of all that could be critiqued, usually only 60% are employed, because the other 40% damage my own arguments as well. But for the hell of it, if they are watching it in pure admiration or awe, they wouldn't even think there is any more to draw even if I have only reached my 60% mark.
-Once upon a time I thought that poor definitions upon a topic is the first mistakes one could make for an interaction. Nope, the first mistake one could make is to make a poorly-worded topic statement itself.
New Addition 3/26/23
-The essence of all outside-the-box thinking is that whatever you think, a box must exist in reference.