Undefeatable

the unstoppable force passes through the immovable object.

I think that my constructive and defense are strongest, because I always try to research my topic ahead of time. I try my best to analyze the sources in depth to support my opinion, often adding upon more logic and ideas for support. My refutations aren't the best, but I continue try to build up my own ideas by showing weaknesses in opponent and attempting to outweigh them. I also try to create a very tricky and complex case so that it's hard to truly penetrate; having many different ideas separated across different points while inferring the same thing overall. If we get to round 2 in my debate against MisterChris, I already have in mind a dangerous framework shift that Chris may fall into if he believes that my constructive is my main offense to battle his case. What do you think of me so far?

I can debate almost anything except religion. I am also not good at talking about relationships as I have never been in one. 

Certainly. The username is just a motivation. I'll just keep track who defeated me and try to win back against them. It's not a 100% ironclad thing like Ragnar's win streak.

i think I saw something similar with your debates. Interested?

yeah, good point. Forum's a forum. I can definitely be beaten here but I take things more seriously with the actual... debating. *cough cough at Demon*

Relax and calm down. Demon thought Chris's desire to completely quit pornography may have been not completely unjustified due to only picking two videos about it (however reliable). There are of course more comprehensive research about the topic; Chris merely chose to express his personal opinion and a basis about it. You are not debating Chris about the topic in a formal setting.

here is a useful template (or maybe not, depending on your style) that may or may not help you in your debating. I think it's a good idea to help format.

Burden of Proof: [Optional commentary on Burden of Proof here.]

Reasoning why argument is important.

This research (or researches) highlights Evidence. Analysis of evidence. Conclusion.

This expert tackles idea. Analysis of connection. Conclusion.

This study demonstrates cause. Analysis of logic. Conclusion.

Impact of argument.

Further Reasoning why argument contributes or complements I. 

Impact of argument.

Some may say that this is the problem. But the worries are resolved.

Show trend in solving problem, or solutions to problems.

Analyze potential problems and compare severity.

Opponent must overcome all arguments to win.

maybe. I’ll just be here as a replacement if something goes wrong then.

I don't really have a favorite yet. Definitely not Systemic Racism, LOL. But since my expertise is science related I like topics that can be rationally found with research.

dark green, rock pop, and fried rice

What kind of music do you like?

I’m Undefeatable and thus far undefeated. Ask me anything

also just curious, do I remind you of anyone on this site? I remember seeing some user that Oromagi's arguments were very similar to. I had switched my previous debate style (more similar to R1 of the Systemic Racism) to a structured argument (R2 of Systemic Racism). I just wanted to establish my overwhelming evidence to encourage fauxlaw to surrender, and double downed when he refused to give.

you're welcome LOL. I mostly try to tear debaters' arguments to shreds, not the debaters themselves. I've got nothing against fauxlaw even if he does believe the systemic racism is nonexistent (speaking of which, you should vote!), I just dislike the idea that the government itself isn't involved merely because of *lack* of policy.

You seem excellent at philosophy type of ideas, that's why I looked up an expert's opinion, made it my own, and combated you with it (along with a dash of other research). I like how you're able to act pretty rationally, I checked on your first debate and seldiora was acting pretty crazy but you managed well. I personally got slightly mad at the implications of systemic racism being ignored so I kind of wasted my personal final round, haha. You probably have better control over actions, and your ideals seem grounded. You're a promising debater; I can tell why seldiora considered you better than intelligence in his "gauntlet tower" (if Whiteflame doesn't come around, as he said).

what do you think of me so far? I accept any and all criticisms.

eh. Same difference. As long as Mall has some sort of a layout.

I feel like the problem is that you don't treat the site as debating. If you read all the top debates (especially Oromagi), the structure/layout is simply not there. Looking up a simple argument reveals the problems you have. Normally, people lay it out like this:

1. Claim - present your argument in a clear statement. This claim is one reason why you're in favour of/against the motion.

2. Evidence - the evidence supporting your claim, such as, statistics, references, quotes, analogies etc

3. Impact - explain the significance of the evidence - how does this support your claim?)  -- from https://virtualspeech.com/blog/guide-to-debating

Your style of asking questions is a good start, but I think connecting it to your point is the crucial part. For example. Let's say I'm debating your topic "There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such."  Of course, I would never ever debate this because I cannot think of three good reasons why this is correct. But I'm going to say I forced myself to side with you. I would lay out one example of your specific idea.

Context: The heritage of the people can be expressed in the words "white power". (According to your perspective, you seem to understand white power as related to unity with your family/cultural background. An acceptable confusion if you aren't familiar with American news)

Claim: "White power" is not inherently wrong as you are uniting together on one common found trait. 

Backing: For example, the Declaration of Independence unites us together as human's power, "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights". (It requires some kind of source or common logic to prove your point. Find it somewhere. Someone has to agree with you in history, even in a broader example.)

Clarification: If whites were just as oppressed as blacks, the focus on the existence of power would be justified as well. (I noticed you mentioned female and black rights. That's a good point, even if flawed to apply to this. It's okay. Tell us why you think in certain situations, white power can possibly be good)

Conclusion: Because the white person is also a person, if they are doing nothing wrong, the "white power" is not inherently wrong. 

It's possible to clarify even further, pressing down upon "people's power". As seldiora tried to argue, when we unite as mankind, this accomplishes all our goals. But you can push this idea to the extreme and say it looks down upon animal rights and ideas. Seldiora's actual steel man, that "power" alone corrupts, is a very strong idea that is hard to refute, but the point is that your argument could have been more founded. Try to expand your ideas. Look for support from different sources. You're getting closer, but you have to make the connection that the "white power" in a vacuum doesn't hurt anyone. They are merely words and ideas. You can state solidly that people themselves make the decision, and that the motivation of "power" has only been corrupted in modern time. As you implied, history and heritage themselves (knowledge is power) can contribute this idea. It's not a 100% unwinnable debate, even if I wouldn't take the topic.

In a casual conversation I would probably be like, no offense but your argument makes zero sense. 

I could put you on trial if you want, give you some nice pointers for debating.

I am the UNDEFEATABLE Karen. That alone should tell you to scoot your little feet back towards the trash bin where you belong. I alone hold the authority here.

here's the problem, right. Let's presume there is a God. I'm going to suspend my belief, and put it in the entity of God. By putting sentience to all events in the universe, you infer everything has a reason for its cause. So God, for no apparent reason, caused the big bang. He has not revealed himself to our entire human race, for no good reason. He has not stopped malicious things from happening, and he has stopped punishing people, despite Christian Bible noting his history of doing so. And somehow, somehow, he has forgotten to give ourselves another planet to help us out, with the closest inhabitable planet being light years away. You attribute this to our "sins", but it is difficult to say with 100% certainty that even cavemen had sins. And why would he punish animals (they are suffering everyday in meat industry, in environmental pollution), if animals are simply there, with no mention of sinning animals in the bible (besides the Serpent of Sin)? 

If there is a God, then he or she is a callous and careless entity similar to an Omega level civilization Alien. He does not care for our existence, nor our beliefs, and could only have caused it, rather than perpetuate its existence. Otherwise, the sheer power of God would be obvious and self-evident to all people on the planet, not just Christians. In other words, it is like a game developer looking upon its characters. A non omnipotent, non omniscient, non omnibenevolent creator. And that's a scary thought to think about.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say we should believe in God (some type of creator and supernatural/supreme being), which I would usually not do in an actual debate due to my name sake. But let's have some fun.

People naturally attribute science they don't understand to "magic" or some God like force. Indeed, it is uncertain what caused the Big Bang, what mysterious forces allowed the universe to continue expanding to today, and all the fundamental laws of the universe. They merely happen to be ... "there". In a way, you could argue that the "God" in a philosophical manner, an overruling mysterious force that controls the world. It is of course, likely not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent like Christians suppose, due to self-contradiction. But the fact is that science has managed to gather together reliable laws and ideas of the universe (such as speed constant of light, force of gravity). As such, people name this as part of "God"'s design. That is why "God" (supreme being who may or may not follow laws of physics on his or her whim) may be reasonable to believe in.

There has been many studies on the human mind and what makes us particularly special. The placebo effect is able to make you boost your physical ability merely by belief. Teachers' beliefs about their students will change the way they perform. In times of extreme duress, our adrenaline has been purported to be able to help us get out of seemingly impossible physical situations. Indeed, the wonders of meditation and the ideals of mankind surpass any logical expectation. I do not personally agree with why people do not trust themselves or other people, but I think it is due to the fact that nature and culture cannot be controlled by yourself. So constantly believing in yourself, but failing to achieve goals, can be a downer, especially since you don't know everything (unlike the "God"). As such, we attribute our excellent mind to have a superior creator above it, such that we can excuse ourselves, place hope in the hands of fate. 

Throughout the criminal justice system, we have had this mindset. If there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, you should decide to have faith. This is a little misled equivalent prejudice on the side of Christians, but it's not entirely bad. Because they say, if you have hope, if you do good things, then you will eternally live happily ever after. They create an artificial reward-punishment system that, on its own, would motivate a human to follow societal expectations and stay within realm of reality. The external motivation is arguably more powerful than the internal motivation system, and so the leap of faith allows the person to do their duty as a human, without having to debate over various moral systems, and simplify it to lack of crimes and being sinless. The forgiveness and interaction with people that Jesus gives is an inspirational attitude that highly resonates with the idea of believing people are innocent, until evidence is placed.

As you can see, even though I am an atheist, for most people it is more reasonable to believe in God. It's merely due to my personal trust and confidence in my own abilities (see username), as well as human's combined incredibility, that I think there is no God. Because when we focus only on ourselves, admit our mistakes, I think that we can revolutionize the world. By doubting, by experimenting, the innovation personally outweighs the hope. In a way, it's "question everything, break the world", versus "stay in a safe place, and have hope". Hope that was enlightening.