Undefeatable

how did you discover about his death? This is quite surprising to me. Rest in peace Ajabi.

I ain't got no time, sorry. 

I just realized Barney’s been here for like, forever but nobody’s ever beaten him. Though it seems he’s never faced a big name challenger in a show down. Who do you think could beat him (that’s active)?

My guesses: oromagi, whiteflame, blamonkey, mister Chris, I’m not sure what rational madman’s expertise is but he might be able to beat him in that (computer science or something?), intelligence and I might be able to give him a good fight.

Absolutely no idea how Trent would do considering Oromagi can beat him at his own weird history games.

Not sure if thett3 is active but they seem very strong, based on what I heard.

Have a go at me.

What’s your point? If some journalist fakes getting it, why’s it so bad? Journalists exaggerate all the time.

We know action movies fake actors saving the world. Is this a bad thing?

hey, Bringer of Rain/ Wylted! Didn't get to thank you properly for your vote on the video game debate. Great stuff. Wouldn't have thought you were the all-controversial user until you challenged me to an infanticide debate, hah.

I do not think I have borderline personality orders. You think I label comments as such and such. I do not actually care that much.

true that

I mean... everyone has weaknesses haha. I'm just trying to improve from them.

didn't say they had to be insulting or degrading haha. You're treating this as if it's some NSFW dom-sub chat XD

if it's constructive, sure.

Come one come all.

as you know, I like always sharpening my weak spots and discovering new ideas.

What’s AMAW? Ask me about weaknesses

- religion information 

- big politics (I hate arguing abortion, guns, border fence — they’ve been done far too often to discover new ways to innovate)

- social ideas (person interaction)

- personal problems or areas of improvement

- anything else

What are some questions that you wouldn’t answer?

Heyyyy blade it’s nice to see you join. I’m not quite willing to reveal my DDO user yet as it’s a secret but just wanted to say I was inspired by you, and wanted to make a username similar to “blade”. I told my close friend 9spaceking (now gugigor) my username was secretly pronounced Earn the Fated Blade XD

thank you for the compliment. I originally was tempted to be like Oromagi/Ragnar with my debates, but just wanted to sharpen my research-ahead-of-time skills and actual debating. My Central Banks debate was more of a clever "Con side has really tricky ideas" rather than "my side is impossible to defeat".

The US Should Nationally Own and Operate Railroads

What about WeakerEdge's statistic about a large proportion of people using abortions actually using contraceptive, meaning that it was a forced event? Not to mention whether the baby's life is certain (miscarriages, etc.)? In poor countries where adoption isn't an option, Mr. Chris's Violent Revolution debate gives an excellent argument why even the strong threat of life can allow for women to perform abortions. Again, I'm very open minded, but abortion seems to be winning for the pro-choice side. I can't have a good conscience and say "you can't abort your baby".

would *you* like to personally suffer the pain and discomfort of pregnancy, unable to give up, and personally give birth to the democrats?

I am not angry here, merely suggesting an insane situation that points out how absurd it is to force women to go through full term. Again, I am not the best at debating abortion, but the freedom argument is pretty hard to knock down.

1) what was the best day(s) of your life?

2) how are your friendships and relationships, and how do they reveal what kind of person you are?

3) what are your favorite shows and movies?

try me

let's be honest here, my argument was weak. Who am I? A computer science major in college. What is Systemic Racism? A complex social construct theory created by different experts and theorists. Now am I really credible to talk about it thoroughly? Surely not. My name may be "Undefeatable", but my research only analyzes sources rather than truly understanding or linking them together. If you were up against Whiteflame or even Weaker Edge, things might be different.

Just as I'm terrible at religious debates, I am similarly bad at proving "concepts". I can prove a scientific idea like Evolution, but this theory crafted by experts is far more vague. I barely managed to convince Whiteflame that Free will was more likely than not.

After I lost my Systemic racism debate twice, I tried to continuously improve my argument, running into many judicial cases and having to interpret law. Now I can really start to see why it can be important to know about Law related ideas, even if you are computer science. Using merely basic knowledge, there was no way I could win a debate that complex.

If only arguing the topic was as easy as analyzing systems of computers... *sigh*

thoughts? Need more details?

Recently I've been trying to sharpen my debate skills a bit more and stumbled upon a book by Steven L. Johnson  (https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/Steven_Johnson_Winning_Debates_2009.pdf) which gives a lot of good debating tips. If you don't have enough time to read it all, here is a nice summary with parts that were most relevant to me:

Description: Differentiate (nature of thing), examples, analogies, authority

^Refuting: how intrinsic the characteristic, thoroughness

Relation: reduction (examination of behavior), analogies, authority

^Refuting: Capability (causation vs correlation), necessary & sufficient, absence test, alternativity

Evaluative: Use value to assign good or bad, comparing to standard

^Refuting: challenge definition (focus on wrong thing), challenge standard, challenge measurement (ex. other factors at play)

_________________________________________________________

Analyzing (why? Depth, breadth, etc.); Synthesis (logical progression)-> Problem/Solution, Principle/Application, Cause/Effect, General/Specific

Acceptability (grounds with unstated assumptions; untrue evidence; lack of validation), Relevance (I love this one), Sufficiency (is burden of proof met?)

________________________________________________

Offense: Presumption (Frameworks, Precedence, Values), Urgency ("is there a better way?" -- more timely and relevant), Objectivity (Principle, Casual connections, Analytic)

Defensive: Balance interests (identify stakeholders, notice imbalance, provide better balance), Goal analysis (find primary, ancillary-> Mitigate, contravention, consequences, counter-plan, alternate goal)

as studies come to a close, my mind has crashed and everything has come to somewhat of a halt. I have been feeling unwell which explains my relatively weak and unstructured arguments. Hoping to feel a bit better soon.

I saw the previous hall of fame's and I'm curious what the next hall of fame might be. There's been a lot of new debates and members so it could be interesting to nominate more people.

1 yes

2 yes

3 not really

I think we both suffer the "in depth look into expert" idea (stack too much extra ideas to counter the logic -- I often rely on other people when I'm not sure how to defeat the other person), except I'm able to take a step back that makes me feel I have a slight advantage in some debates. I think it's also useful to continually think about unique benefits your side has, as I was unable to research too far in depth in regards with my cyber offense debate. Your debate against Fauxlaw was remarkably close.

Any feedback you have for me? I'm trying to move away from other sources by supplying my own understanding and logic. 

It's good to be careful about your debates, though I'd argue Ragnar and Oromagi took it to the extreme. I'm also reasonably careful with researching a topic ahead of time, though the Problem of Evil was done kind of on impulse to see how good I was thinking on my feet. I'm not the best at logically deducing ideas that I don't know intimately (ex. utilitarianism flaws) so I tend to avoid those kind of debates.

I can see why, but Gugigor just doesn't really try his best 99% of the time LOL. Also, I use too much expert stacking which some people can destroy (fauxlaw and the gang).

I can confirm personally that gugigor's skills are on par with mine. If you can tango with Gugigor, you can definitely beat me. 

I forget, what's his argument again?

If you take a look at weakerEdge's abortion debate the arguments are pretty reasonable. Unless the opponent is as good as Mister Chris you're probably set.

I'm probably gonna get knocked right out of top 5 with Chris's and Coal's wins gradually setting into place, but it's good while it lasts. I finally got Challenger. I wonder how many people on DART got that achievement.

All that's left is to secure number 2 and maybe even try to knock out Oromagi. Maybe I'll manage in a few years. XD

elo isn't everything.... *stares at oromagi*

Having lost the same near-truism debate twice, I declare myself as one of the worst debaters on DART.

I guess I'll just have to have 100~500 more practice debates and then create a new account to aim for second place...

Wish me luck guys!

Thanks gugigor. 

In order to tell what is a preferable style to use in a debate, we must consider what the work place consists of. My debating style establishes standards, encourages working harder to find an answer, and I believe that it is superior to gugigor's in a job interview.

As the Australian Institute of Business explains, professionalism is greatly valued in a workplace because the respect is increased, the business reputation will flourish, and the conflict is minimized [1]. Even though I may not always be able to cite sources or experts in an interview, gaining more knowledge from various trusted figures eventually crafts a more knowledgeable person. As a famous quote says, "knowledge is power". Combined with my deeper research into the company's purpose and ideals, it's doubtless that my debating style is superior to Gugigor's when it comes to an interview. As the same Glassdoor that Gugigor uses highlights, [2] research is crucial to understanding a company, yet my opponent would prefer his usual "wing it" style which contrasts against his casual speaking style. Would he rather that the interviewee understand very little about the company? He seems like the type of person to blindly apply for internships, not caring if he's wasting his time with completely inapplicable skills to the job, or what to answer if they ask the crucial question -- "why do you want to work for us?" All Gugigor gives us is a seemingly more flexible style, yet my standards are precisely what creates the arsenal necessary to bring to a job interview.

While it is true that a more casual style can help free flow of information, my style does not need to be applied word for word in the interview. My eloquence may be a bit overboard, but it's better to avoid using slangs or accidentally swearing which may negatively influence your image. The true goals of a company include making sure you understand the mission, answering questions thoroughly, knowing strengths and weaknesses, conveying soft skills, being confident, so on and so forth. [3] Yet Gugigor's style seems too experimental and arbitrary to actually "make it" in my opinion. He called himself a poor debater and even dared to battle intelligence about it. He believed he had gotten worse, while in reality he was expanding horizons in order to truly improve his ideas. Gugigor's progression is merely the journey in order to accomplish the job interview. I argue that my style is superior as it is the application of all his efforts. I know which topics I must improve on, but even with weak resolutions, I continue going into depth as much as I can. My username combined with never forfeiting or conceding clearly highlights that I would be far superior to Gugigor in a job interview.

1. https://www.aib.edu.au/blog/organisations-culture/3-reasons-professionalism-essential-workplace/#:~:text=Professional%20employees%20tend%20to%20understand,from%20different%20cultures%20or%20backgrounds.

2. https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/7-research-job-interview/

3. https://www.pongoresume.com/articles/498/what-employers-most-look-for-in-an-interview.cfm

I've always liked games so I was playing around with the possible comparison of debating "actions" to help enhance your case when you're not quite sure what to do. Just like in RPG's where you can attack, defend, heal, cast spells, I found it entertaining to consider different ideas to make debating more interesting. Here are a few "Debating Actions" I summarized that may help in future debates.

1. Precision Attack: Precisely what, exactly what, is wrong with the opponent's case? It may be a single word, it may be a single idea, but if you find it, you may take down his whole case. Using different comparisons, metaphors, or asking various questions, you may clarify the opponent's exact stance. The more specific an idea is, the easier it is to figure out if it's wrong or correct.

2. The Reconfiguration: Perhaps you are having difficulty explaining your position. I found my case in the cyber offensive debate remarkably complex, so I felt like I had to use multiple different ways to explain what was happening. Different tones, styles, and ideas can highlight the same case in many different ways.

[Long paragraphs with detailed sentences, may be unclear]

[Numbered points help refocus and transition logically in a chronological manner]

[Bullet points help concisely explain points and summarize ideas that may otherwise be too complicated]

3. The Explanation: It's possible that real world statistics and ideas are a bit too muddy and mix up together. Creating examples or fictional situations may greatly help strengthen your case. The Explanation is similar to Reconfiguration, but can also make your case more lively when it's filled with studies and history. In my debate about giving prisoners the ability to gain lighter sentences, I tried to link the "retribution" idea to related cases in real life. Though it arguably held no weight, it greatly helped understanding and felt like I could understand my argument better. Some times explanation can also help you gain inspiration or ideas you otherwise would not have had.

4. The Question: Often times you may be so absorbed in your case that you forget to think about the other side. Whether it be admitting a counter argument, only to outweigh it, or to force your opponent to reconfigure, "The Question" can greatly help encompass all ideas. I noticed in my debate against Whiteflame that I was forced to ask a lot of questions in the end, and lost partially due to inability to raise my framework above his. Nevertheless, I believe I put up a good fight by forcing him to clarify further. In a way, it's similar to "Precision Attack".

Only a bit longer to overtake Trent. Got any questions to ask? Commentary to make? I wanted a challenge and I saw that the leaderboard was mostly people accepting debates from weaker people, rather than having an open challenge and risking a very strong opponent. So I wanted to both prove instigator advantage was wrong (by winning most of my debates as instigator) as well as prove "Undefeatable" could still lose and be very strong (by eventually beating Ragnar's rating). 

Eh. I like calling it a rematch. Or the central bank one if you’re up for the challenge

if sheep dies then you can have your rematch. Immigrants debate same side Challenge is still open. I believe my revised case is ever so slightly superior to yours...

interested in your guys subject tier lists.

Here is how good I am at various debate subjects in my opinion.

Outstanding: Science, Computer Science, Technology

Reasonable: Economics, Education, Society

Mediocre: Politics, Morality, Entertainment

Bad: Religion, Relationships

How good are you guys at various subjects?

Though I had felt reasonably certain about my goal to being number 2 (since I would have beaten the highest "Undefeatable" debater, thus fulfilling my title), I'm curious if you guys think it's possible to beat Oromagi. He basically has at least 70 victories against 1500's, and managed to beat a number of high rankers including Intelligence, Mr. Chris, and Trent. If he goes through his 100th debate with Whiteflame as rated and loses, beating him will be much easier. But it still seems remarkably hard to win so many debates and lose so few. What do you guys think? Is Number 2 a respectable goal? Or is it possible to defeat Oromagi's position while instigating the vast majority of debates?

indian teacher go brrr (unless this is a very skilled troll lol)

It seems that some Indian teacher found this site and wants to make their students debate each other about various topics, focusing mostly on police brutality but also some other ideas. What do you guys think? I hope they’re here to stay.

oh shit— 😱😱😱😱

i snooped around whiteflame’s profile and found that you beat him 

what a mad lad. Giving my actual points to the kudos points XD