Undefeatable's avatar

Undefeatable

A member since

1
6
11

Total topics: 25

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.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
80 14
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
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
23 10
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*
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
8 5
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:

ARGUMENTS
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)

_________________________________________________________

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

DECONSTRUCTIVE
Acceptability (grounds with unstated assumptions; untrue evidence; lack of validation), Relevance (I love this one), Sufficiency (is burden of proof met?)
> Refutation: Identify argument, critique, explain significance
________________________________________________

ADVANCED TACTICS
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)

Feel free to ask any questions and provide feedback.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
3 2
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.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
4 4
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.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
18 10
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
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
4 3
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!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
10 9
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.

Example: "Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby's life." -- Precision Attack: "You assume that we are killing a baby... Please prove this further..."

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.

Example: The "Paranoid Android" is so focused on its attack we lose our enforcement of user data. And this further loss of data is even worse than what four Chinese agents can manage. If we don't solve the common source of the problem -- our weak defense -- we can never gain our people's trust. Based on Pro's ideals, we'd just be attacking country after country, unable to stop malicious people in general. If Equifax had enforced its cybersecurity in the first place, we would've avoided this whole problem.

[Long paragraphs with detailed sentences, may be unclear]

1. US Defenses is Weak if we focus only on Attack (Proved by Equifax)
2. Arbitrary country X continues attacking the US (Pro thinks China is the sole problem, while it is not)
3. We hinder only country X from attacking the US (Why solve problem 2, rather than solve problem 1)?

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

  • CON affirms that defense, in the long run, outweighs offense for reasons of escalation, over the distribution of resources, and sacrificing of our defensive capabilities.
  • CON affirms that defense enhancement encourages fixing of problems within security, unlike pro who encourages us to ignore enforcing standards and focus more on attacking other countries.
[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.

Example: People will use any excuse to justify the VR. We see this even in the modern-day. The citizens were rallied by Trump, believing his election to be oppressive -- voter fraud, Biden's lies, so on and so forth. Yet most of these claims are unfounded by expert sources -- otherwise, the Supreme Court would've overturned the election already. The people conducted a violent revolution against the capitol, only to result in deaths and unchanged policy. If we let citizens revolt under any justification, then we would have nothing but chaos, and the entire government contract is violated.

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".

Example: If voters are convinced that there is no unique risk with this addition of a new job that saves lives, then it is no different than becoming a back-breaking worker at a hazardous construction site. Notice how con jumps around the "unique" idea the whole entire debate. I will repeat it again: Why does Con allow for the poor to work at hazardous construction sites, which may or may not result in permanent injury?  .... I will repeat my previous question from last round in a different manner: Are we somehow "exploiting" people who may not know all the side effects of donation, doing it because of pressure from society ("honor" as Con claims), and receiving no benefit?

Additional explanation can greatly help "The Question" which already puts doubt in the opponent's case. If I had highlighted that my case was less arbitrary and contradictory, then I may have had a chance to tie or win the debate.

What do all of you think? What are your favorite "debating actions"?

Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
1 1
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). 
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
5 5
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?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
10 6
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?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
4 4
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.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
10 9
Despite enforcing myself stricter standards than my average writing, I find that I am still losing debates at a disproportionate rate, and even truisms meant to swayed in my favor still yet lost (Systemic Racism, Flat Earth, etc.)

As such, I think that I am doing something greatly wrong. There must be something I am missing. What rules should I add upon to further make my arguments impenetrable?

Current rules:
- Think of three good reasons why you are correct before accepting
- Hold onto as many ideas as possible
- Thoroughly crack opponent's exact stance, through clarification and comparison
- Evaluate impacts of each idea, and potential impacts of impacts
- Never give up or forfeit
- Always spell check before posting

Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
12 8
As I march onto my 5th lost debate, I think this is a good opportunity to take a break. I will try to avoid debating momentarily to ruminate and improve skills (unless someone is up to challenge ...) . To lose such a debate with overwhelming evidence is embarrassing to me -- not to mention the Madman defeated me in one of my expertise, internet privacy. I will be back. Mark my words.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
12 5
I haven't seen so many people battle back and forth over a debate and disagree with such a disparity. (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2765-u-s-k-12-public-schools-should-incorporate-more-video-games-in-their-curriculum) People being left and right with arguments, sources, and even my previous opponent TheWeakerEdge with his conduct vote. Seems a little bit crazy considering I only had a 3,000 character limit for each three rounds. 

What do you guys think? Hopefully, I'll get enough votes for a proper decision. I'm surprised by how highly gugigor evaluates Whiteflame, though it's interesting to see how (he brought this up when asked) Whiteflame on DDO chose the winner 100% of the time when elected as a judge. Will he fail this time? Hard to tell.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
3 3
I feel like my round 1's are arguably my strongest and I'm trying to think of potential sampling for writing portfolio. Which of my debate openers do you guys think best exemplify my writing skills and arguing ability?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
5 4
Here is the full article for Site 7 from Round 1 of my Cyber Offense Debate


I own none of this. All credits go to Rod Thornton.

Deterring Russian cyber warfare: the practical, legal and ethical constraints faced by the United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
This article examines both the nature of the cyber threat that Russia poses to the United Kingdom and the efficacy of the latter’s responses to it. It begins, and making use of original Russian sources, with a review of why a Russian cyber campaign is being conducted against the UK and how it is being operationalised. This article then goes on to analyse the UK’s ability to defend itself against this campaign by employing the concepts of both deterrence-by-denial and deterrence-by-punishment. But can this UK cyber deterrence actually work? The idea of cyber deterrence-by-denial seems to be impractical, while there are specific issues with employing cyber in a deterrence-by-punishment capacity. In particular, how can the UK use its own offensive cyber capabilities against Russia and yet remain within international law and ethical boundaries? Indeed, the UK government has already accepted that, in any future use of its offensive cyber capabilities, it cannot do so.
In this article








ABSTRACT
This article examines both the nature of the cyber threat that Russia poses to the United Kingdom and the efficacy of the latter’s responses to it. It begins, and making use of original Russian sources, with a review of why a Russian cyber campaign is being conducted against the UK and how it is being operationalised. This article then goes on to analyse the UK’s ability to defend itself against this campaign by employing the concepts of both deterrence-by-denial and deterrence-by-punishment. But can this UK cyber deterrence actually work? The idea of cyber deterrence-by-denial seems to be impractical, while there are specific issues with employing cyber in a deterrence-by-punishment capacity. In particular, how can the UK use its own offensive cyber capabilities against Russia and yet remain within international law and ethical boundaries? Indeed, the UK government has already accepted that, in any future use of its offensive cyber capabilities, it cannot do so.
Introduction
This article begins by reviewing the rationales behind and the operationalising of Russia’s cyber warfare campaign against certain Western states, including the United Kingdom. It goes on to consider how the threat posed by this activity, having in mind practical, legal and ethical constraints, can best be countered. As a focus of examination, this article reviews the deterrence measures that the UK can apply in response to Russian cyber activity. In particular, it looks at the UK’s stated intent to reply with its own ‘offensive’ cyber warfare capabilities. ‘Britain’, indeed, and as one Russian source puts it, ‘is the first country in the world to publicly acknowledge that it is developing the potential to conduct offensive operations in cyberspace against other countries’ (Savchenko 2017, 153). The conclusion is reached here that it will actually prove extremely difficult for the UK to effectively deter Russian cyber operations simply by using its own cyber tools.
The aims of Russian cyber operations
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
8 1
I made this account to try to prove my worth and see what I could do, motivated by a powerful username. But I think I must have some consequence for failing, otherwise I cannot live up to it. At 3 Rated Losses, I will go back to my hermit shell and rework on my debating skills.

That is all. 
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
3 3
What if my username was Defeatable. I wonder if it would be just as inspiring lol 
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
1 1
well, it seems like MisterChris managed to contradict my namesake. It was nice while it lasted.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
12 7
I noticed it’s difficult for me to stick the landing at the end after rebuttals because I feel I’ve exhausted everything especially after strong constructive and negations. What do you guys like to do for final rounds?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
5 4
since no one is accepting my debates I invite anyone to bring forth a controversial topic to talk about. I will take the opposing side and offer information and we can have a casual discussion about it. I will award people points for making good constructive or refutations. Come one come all. Defeat the Undefeatable!

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
20 5
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.]

I. Strongest Argument

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.

II. Another Strong Argument

Further Reasoning why argument contributes or complements I. 
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.

III. Potential Worries, or a Third 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.

Sources
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
2 2
I’m Undefeatable and thus far undefeated. Ask me anything
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
28 11