"I tend not to be persuasive and just speak about the arguments my opponent lays out instead of simply picking the best ones to suit my narrative"
This approach is wrong for a number of reasons. The main reason is you can find flaws in any position. For example it is pointless to point out the flaws of capitalism, if you do not propose another system for critique and convince your opponent is has less flaws. You need a solid base of knowledge to do that though, but as your profile says, you hate reading.
I assume it is because of reading comprehension problems. You need to have sub vocalization while reading for good comprehension as well as being able to visualize in your mind's eye what was written. I suggest practicing sub vocalization as well as visualization while reading. Most people also only retain 40% of what they read the first time but it jumps to 80% on the second reading. You should always read things twice. I think if you do those things, you'll find reading more enjoyable, which will help you expand your base of knowledge. Also reading your opponent's arguments in that way will also help expand your base of knowledge and make your next opponent more predictable.
I just don't want to be last place among all active debaters. Kind of embarrassing, especially after being top 10 on a debate site where it is much much harder to be top 10. So I decided I will stop being easy to defeat here, It is tough because the voting is so terrible on this site compared to how good it was on DDO for a certain amount of time, and nearly always taking the unpopular position it makes winning harder here than on DDO.
As far as your back and forth with KIng, I think it is a waste of time and your time is better spent elsewhere, but I don't care. I only get alerts on comments when my name is mentioned.
First I look at how informal logic is applied and then creativity 2nd and depth of knowledge third in last place is rhetorical ability. I have seen people be incredible in one skill where they can be weak in others but it is more common to be good at all of those to be a good debater. I am willing to mentor you in one debate against a competent debater of high skill. Allow for 2 week arguments and limit characters to 10k.
When somebody gives you an extra round, take it. Especially when they are more skilled than you. It can be the difference between a win and a loss and they don't need to be punished for conduct if you punish them by defeating them with extra characters
Nothing wrong with advertising if it is relevant to the debate. Also God (me) loves you. Give up your possessions and any female lovers you have to me, and join my family
It is to compensate for veing weak debaters. The more they can control their environment and see the exact same thing over and over, the easier it is to grab wins. I saw BSH1 beg an opponent to allow the debate to end in a tie once because he argued something he didn't like. When he refused, the next debate bsh1 made a rule to make people assume "normative ethics". It is just pussy like behavior.
Thanks, I did not even realize you were undefeated until you said something. It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds. Being undefeated means you are operating too much in your comfort zone, so congrats on proving that you have earned your record and have been willing to push yourself.
"I didn't get scared. I created the debate before you decided what you wanted to do then you asked me to change it."
Not true, we were debating a generic border wall in discord and we were supposed to settle that here, but you attempted to make an abusive resolution to give yourself an unfair advantage. Why would we debate a generic border-wall on discord and you interpret it as Trump's border wall, and change it from the benefits of to The effectiveness of.
I am okay debating whether your vote on Pinkfreud's debate was a good vote
I tried to create that debate, but you got scared to do it, and instead wanted this one because you thought it gave you some unfair advantage. We can debate another topic if you want, but 30k rounds are retarded so no on that. 5k if the topic bores me, 10k limit if the topic is good
Why are you putting on this show. Why are you asking for evidence you cheated and intentionally used bias, when you know you did. I just can't figure out if the bias is because you dislike me or like pinkfreud or if the intentional bias is because of your political bias.
Omar is now mad that you voted in my favor and vote bombed my socialism debate, by voting for the obvious loser. This site is ridiculous and needs fixing
You know you have not followed the guide on voting.
Why do you want proof you intentionally used bias to rationalize your vote? It is like me asking you for proof I have a dick. I know I have a dick, I don't need evidence.
Because it is using your own knowledge of what "fundamentals are and not in the spirit of Tabula Rasa voting style. Reread the voting guidelines bsh1 published and the ones I put in my debate with you.
I accidentally responded to wrong person. Read my last response, and I don't need proof of something obvious. It is like you asking me for proof the sun will come up tommorrow, you are not that dumb to think it isn't clear to everyone how biased that vote was. Proof of the bias is that you would have to have an IQ below 85 to even think the reasoning you used is sensible
"False dichotomy mixed in with false information. I was voting based on the core arguments. If both of your fundamentals are bad then what do I have to work with?"
This sentence is nonsensical. Fundamentals (whatever that means) is not something for you to judge, that is something established in debate, you are not approacing this from a Tabula Rasa angle
That is not the correct way to judge the arguments. The Miscellanous forum has some guides for how you properly vote on this site. The guides I provided in my debate against you go into more detail than the ones our head mod created in the misc. forum but they are in agreement with how votes should be weighed here
I had like 10 studies bookmarked that prove that where a studies funding comes from is not proof of bias and that bias from funding is extremely rare. How a think tank interprets data may be incorrect but the think tank usually has good methods for the studies they fund
You cheated to give your friend the win. You ignored my statistics that showed universal healthcare costs more deaths, you did not judge my arguments based on his rebuttals but your own. This is intentional cheating on behalf of your friend and there is no way in hell your IQ is so low that you believe the reasoning you gave in your vote
Don't play stupid. You literally stated the following which all came from you and not from my opponent "What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite."
I'm aware. This would take me about 2 hours to vote on, which is why I only vote on one long debate per week. I just feel like my votes never outweigh the incompetent people's who outnumber competent voters such as you, myself, whiteflam and orogami about 4 to 1. They outnumbered us on DDO too but atleast we were more active their to make up for it
Yeah, I have issues with every RFD ever written, but that was the only thing that stuck in my craw. I never mentioned it I don't think. I just assumed my stats on illegal immigrants would not be applied to legal immigrants who are usually coming from better circumstances
https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-Federal-Government-should-legalize-child-porn-Wylted-vs-Bluesteel-and-Mikal/1/
"I tend not to be persuasive and just speak about the arguments my opponent lays out instead of simply picking the best ones to suit my narrative"
This approach is wrong for a number of reasons. The main reason is you can find flaws in any position. For example it is pointless to point out the flaws of capitalism, if you do not propose another system for critique and convince your opponent is has less flaws. You need a solid base of knowledge to do that though, but as your profile says, you hate reading.
I assume it is because of reading comprehension problems. You need to have sub vocalization while reading for good comprehension as well as being able to visualize in your mind's eye what was written. I suggest practicing sub vocalization as well as visualization while reading. Most people also only retain 40% of what they read the first time but it jumps to 80% on the second reading. You should always read things twice. I think if you do those things, you'll find reading more enjoyable, which will help you expand your base of knowledge. Also reading your opponent's arguments in that way will also help expand your base of knowledge and make your next opponent more predictable.
That is a healthy attitude to have. If you lose to me, it is never my fault but yours.
This is a full forfeit and you both showed prior interest in the debate. Do you mind giving a quick vote?
I just don't want to be last place among all active debaters. Kind of embarrassing, especially after being top 10 on a debate site where it is much much harder to be top 10. So I decided I will stop being easy to defeat here, It is tough because the voting is so terrible on this site compared to how good it was on DDO for a certain amount of time, and nearly always taking the unpopular position it makes winning harder here than on DDO.
As far as your back and forth with KIng, I think it is a waste of time and your time is better spent elsewhere, but I don't care. I only get alerts on comments when my name is mentioned.
A voter bringing up gish gallop is incompetent.
Those are mostly forfeited debates. 2 I should have won, and gish Gallop can't harm you in this debate format unless you overdo it
First I look at how informal logic is applied and then creativity 2nd and depth of knowledge third in last place is rhetorical ability. I have seen people be incredible in one skill where they can be weak in others but it is more common to be good at all of those to be a good debater. I am willing to mentor you in one debate against a competent debater of high skill. Allow for 2 week arguments and limit characters to 10k.
When somebody gives you an extra round, take it. Especially when they are more skilled than you. It can be the difference between a win and a loss and they don't need to be punished for conduct if you punish them by defeating them with extra characters
You didn't do debates because you weren't good at them. That is sad, please challenge yourself more often. Stop staying in your wheelhouse.
Okay, I will debate one of the mods on this and have the rule changed. Stuoid rule
Nothing wrong with advertising if it is relevant to the debate. Also God (me) loves you. Give up your possessions and any female lovers you have to me, and join my family
It would need to be a soft 15 actually. If I proved tge Earth 16000 years old it would be absurd to lose a YEC debate
It is to compensate for veing weak debaters. The more they can control their environment and see the exact same thing over and over, the easier it is to grab wins. I saw BSH1 beg an opponent to allow the debate to end in a tie once because he argued something he didn't like. When he refused, the next debate bsh1 made a rule to make people assume "normative ethics". It is just pussy like behavior.
Yes, but I will be picky about the parameters of the debate. Make it and I will explain what I need changed, if Anything
Thanks, I did not even realize you were undefeated until you said something. It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds. Being undefeated means you are operating too much in your comfort zone, so congrats on proving that you have earned your record and have been willing to push yourself.
Is it still an easy win after seeing those arguments for pro?
Still 5 more days good. I am sitting in a public library and just found myself extremely nervous about advocating for child porn.
Who the hell takes 12 hours to work on an RFD
I am pro on the electoral college. Most liberals decided to be con on it because they think they gain an advantage by getting rid of it.
I know that vote took a lot of time and effort. Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to judge the debate.
"I didn't get scared. I created the debate before you decided what you wanted to do then you asked me to change it."
Not true, we were debating a generic border wall in discord and we were supposed to settle that here, but you attempted to make an abusive resolution to give yourself an unfair advantage. Why would we debate a generic border-wall on discord and you interpret it as Trump's border wall, and change it from the benefits of to The effectiveness of.
I am okay debating whether your vote on Pinkfreud's debate was a good vote
Do you mind looking at and voting on this debate please
I tried to create that debate, but you got scared to do it, and instead wanted this one because you thought it gave you some unfair advantage. We can debate another topic if you want, but 30k rounds are retarded so no on that. 5k if the topic bores me, 10k limit if the topic is good
I've been using syllogisms to display my logic lately, so here it is.
P1- Omar's RFD was so bad he is literally Retarded, or it is intentionally biaseed.
P2- It is rude to consider him retarded
C1- Omar is intentionally biased
I don't think you tried to bias him. I assume you are honorable. He just lacks the integrity to be unbiased, You did nothing wrong
Accidental tag. I am an idiot, meant to tag omar
Thanks fellow black man
I never rest. When you see only one set of footprints in the sand, it is because I am carrying you
Can I get a vote on this debate as a fellow black guy
Can you take a look at this please. I am running out of people to ask. If you have any suggestions I will tag them here
Just vote fairly and you don't have to take those extremes
Actually bsh1, why don't you just vote on the debate so he can see how it is correctly done
Why are you putting on this show. Why are you asking for evidence you cheated and intentionally used bias, when you know you did. I just can't figure out if the bias is because you dislike me or like pinkfreud or if the intentional bias is because of your political bias.
Omar is now mad that you voted in my favor and vote bombed my socialism debate, by voting for the obvious loser. This site is ridiculous and needs fixing
You know you have not followed the guide on voting.
Why do you want proof you intentionally used bias to rationalize your vote? It is like me asking you for proof I have a dick. I know I have a dick, I don't need evidence.
Dick, Disciple, can you place a fair unbiased vote on this please if you have the time and inclination anyway
Did you noticed after our debate I had no hard feelings and voted correctly in one of your debates. Why are you voting incorrectly in mine?
Because it is using your own knowledge of what "fundamentals are and not in the spirit of Tabula Rasa voting style. Reread the voting guidelines bsh1 published and the ones I put in my debate with you.
I accidentally responded to wrong person. Read my last response, and I don't need proof of something obvious. It is like you asking me for proof the sun will come up tommorrow, you are not that dumb to think it isn't clear to everyone how biased that vote was. Proof of the bias is that you would have to have an IQ below 85 to even think the reasoning you used is sensible
"False dichotomy mixed in with false information. I was voting based on the core arguments. If both of your fundamentals are bad then what do I have to work with?"
This sentence is nonsensical. Fundamentals (whatever that means) is not something for you to judge, that is something established in debate, you are not approacing this from a Tabula Rasa angle
That is not the correct way to judge the arguments. The Miscellanous forum has some guides for how you properly vote on this site. The guides I provided in my debate against you go into more detail than the ones our head mod created in the misc. forum but they are in agreement with how votes should be weighed here
I had like 10 studies bookmarked that prove that where a studies funding comes from is not proof of bias and that bias from funding is extremely rare. How a think tank interprets data may be incorrect but the think tank usually has good methods for the studies they fund
I was trying to bait him into an argument about the credibility of the source, but he never bit.
You cheated to give your friend the win. You ignored my statistics that showed universal healthcare costs more deaths, you did not judge my arguments based on his rebuttals but your own. This is intentional cheating on behalf of your friend and there is no way in hell your IQ is so low that you believe the reasoning you gave in your vote
Don't play stupid. You literally stated the following which all came from you and not from my opponent "What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite."
I'm aware. This would take me about 2 hours to vote on, which is why I only vote on one long debate per week. I just feel like my votes never outweigh the incompetent people's who outnumber competent voters such as you, myself, whiteflam and orogami about 4 to 1. They outnumbered us on DDO too but atleast we were more active their to make up for it
Did I tag you in this yet?
Yeah, I have issues with every RFD ever written, but that was the only thing that stuck in my craw. I never mentioned it I don't think. I just assumed my stats on illegal immigrants would not be applied to legal immigrants who are usually coming from better circumstances