whiteflame

There's definitely a set of standardized arguments in law that are used over and over again, and with good reason. That comes up in debating, at least on certain topics, as well, though I think that's part of the problem with so many debates: they're predictable. No matter how strong the argument, there's always some hole or avenue to exploit them, and if you know what's coming, then you come prepared to handle it. Personally, I like to work that trick in reverse - I'll read deeply enough into my own points to see the holes, and then be ready for the obvious rebuttals I know are coming.

Your point may be more about having certain points in debate that make your judges perk up if only because it's instantly recognizable as an important point. That definitely holds true as well, though I'd say that has more to do with impacts and how they're explained on the debate side. On the legal side, it has everything to do with knowing the right cases to point to as precedent for essential arguments.

I haven't had occasion yet to fully read through one of your debates, though that will be happening over the rest of this week as theweakeredge requested a vote on your debate with him. I can give you specific feedback there and, of course, on your current debate with MisterChris after that's done.

Yeah, I have the same problem, especially since it really doesn't fit well with the structure I use for my arguments. I've done one pure philosophy debate before and I don't think I did it that well. Still, practice helps. 

It doesn’t really net anything to claim mason, but that’s Grey’s MO.

Depends on the role, though with a few exceptions, it’s usually not a good idea to claim in DP1 unless you have to do so.

Generally, unless you think it would be beneficial to publicly claim your role, you should probably refrain from revealing it immediately.

Don't have a big problem with line-by-line rebuttals in general - honestly, there's little choice but to do it for rebuttal rounds. But yeah, changing up the final round structure could do a lot to improve your debates. Interested to see what you come up with.

I appreciate the insight. I'm perhaps a little harsher on myself than I should be.

As for my feedback for you, I think you've got much of what I'm struggling with down pat. You tend to be much more concise, at least in your opening round (I think you tend to get a little verbose in your efforts to cover everything in your rebuttal rounds), and I think your opening rounds are one of the stronger elements of your debates. If anything could use work, I would say it's your final round. You're doing good work in weighing analysis, but the structure that you tend to go with in your final round looks a lot like all your other rounds post-R1. You tend to have an eye on your final round throughout much of the debate, but you have a hard time fully investing in it, since you tend to want to make sure everything is covered. That's something I've struggled with as well over time, and I tend to want to do the same thing you're doing, which is hitting every argument your opponent makes. It's really only since I've been doing BP, and only in the last couple of years, that I've tried to break away from the line-by-line. It works, but it kinda just leaves a jumbled mess of arguments by the end with a few points about weight that don't really give a clear set of outcomes for the major points made in the debate. Even if you say "this point outweighs this one," I'm usually wondering how those points weigh against others, and I don't have a clear big picture view of what this debate is really about. Even if I have a clear idea of what is the most powerful impact, how much it matters to the actual debate is a different story, and I feel like you are strong at setting up a debate, but not so much at linking that setup to the finish.

/in

I've known a lot of British twats with incredible debate skills.

That comes with time and effort. No one comes into debate with a perfect understanding of all the mechanics or how to use them, but if you're willing to keep pursuing it, I think you can pick those things up. I find that live debates do that better than the online variety, if only because of the trial by fire nature of having to stand and be heard rather than just typing out an argument, but you could do worse than to practice here. Talk with your judges after a debate, if they're willing, and see if you can dig down into some of the feedback they gave you. Read into some of the more complex debates on the site and see if you can break down the arguments to the pieces that make them successful. It's work, but it's also incredibly informative. 

Well, I guess that starts with picking a topic you enjoy and would be motivated to participate in to the end. Maybe also designating an opponent would help? I find I'm most motivated by debates where my opponent and I have planned the basics out ahead of time.

I’ll try something I’ve seen a little of under different topics, though nothing too centralized. I’d like to just have a spot where we can all provide some insights into what we feel needs work and what we’re doing about it in our debating. This can also be an opportunity to provide some constructive feedback, particularly to people who are either unclear on what to improve or just feel stuck for whatever reason.

In my case, I’d say I have two major problems. First is that I’m just generally too verbose. You give me a character limit and I’ll almost always fill it. It normally takes a lot of editing before I have decent word economy. Part of what I’ve idolized from the best debaters I’ve seen (mostly in live debates) is their ability to be concise and incisive, whereas I almost always feel like I’m failing at one or the other.

The second is that I don’t feel I put out good first rounds in debates. They’re all serviceable and they get me where I need to go, but they almost never stand as my best round. I’m much stronger on rebuttals and conclusions than I am on case construction, which is strangely the opposite of where I was in my early days as a debater (when, to be fair, I wasn’t very good at anything). I’ve got a few examples of strong first rounds, but the vast majority are just there to get my points out.

As for what I’m doing about these, I keep challenging myself by enforcing a lower character limit on what I’m writing than the debate requires. I still fill it, but I figure if I can keep moving the limit down and then one day remove it, I can feel a little more confident in using fewer words to make my point. In the case of the latter, I’m mainly just trying to break out of my usual structure for the opening round. I’ve come to be rather regimented there, whereas I’ve made a lot of changes to how my conclusions are structured. I think that the more I experiment, the more likely I’ll find what fits. I’m also trying to make them feel (at least to me) more like rebuttals, as though I’m attacking something rather than making my own stand-alone points. That’s precarious because I’m not at all a fan of pre-rebuttals (anticipating what your opponent will say and addressing it before they say it), but treating it as though I’m challenging a probable mindset of my audience or the topic itself helps me skirt around that.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Interested to see how other people respond to this. If you think you’re perfect, then I suppose that’s a response as well, though I doubt anyone’s so good at this that they couldn’t stand to improve anything about their debating.

As for the central question, I think Ragnar has earned both his record and reputation. He’s a very formidable debater, and I suspect that if we did have a debate, it would be very challenging for me. Not that I’m prone to ranking lists, as I think a comparison of debaters regarding who would win really only works when you’re talking about their performances on specific topics (you can compare styles, but quite honestly, even throwing everything I’ve got into it, I’d be perfectly awful in a religion debate and I’m pretty poor in pure philosophy - only did that once and, though I won, I didn’t feel like I did well), but I do think Ragnar could stand toe-to-toe with anyone on the site on a variety of topics. There are only a handful of people I could say that about, so I’d count him as one of the best around.

I'll get in on this.

Fine either way. 

I could still take on the top of the tower, should he get there. Shouldn't happen in the next couple of weeks, so I'll be freed up by then.

Well, I'm sorry to see you go. Guess you can't wait until the end of your tournament? I think it will end well.

I ask questions. I try my best to make points solely based on what they say rather than using my own, and I find that helps quite a bit. They'll tend to dig themselves a pretty deep hole in the process.

Got it. Be well, Supa, and good luck with the applications.

Well, I’d offer to challenge, but the next couple of weeks I’m going to be slammed, so I can’t judge either. Guess I’ll join the tower, since that will give me some time before whoever decides to challenge has a chance to face me.

Frankly, take your time, both posting the debate and with each round. I’ll be hectically busy for the first couple of weeks in November, so it’ll be touch and go for me keeping up with the debate to judge.

Don't think I'm going to be able to make this one, as I'll be spending the end of this week (likely when this is going to get started) getting my life moved out to a different part of the country to start a new job, the organization of which will likely dominate the subsequent two weeks as well. Unless this is going to be pretty dramatically delayed, I think I'll have to sit this one out.

Might have the time. Thankfully, this isn't a massive time investment.

Well, I think I've only scratched the surface. I played this one entirely straight, largely just trying to see how other people behaved and working to find out what tells to look for, which I think I managed to do pretty well. I kind of wish more uncertainty had been directed towards me so that I could have tested how my own behaviors would be perceived, but without being a non-town role, I know there are limitations to how much subterfuge I should employ.

Still, I very much enjoyed it. I'd absolutely be up for trying again - was actually sad I didn't get to go in on the Stormlight Archives round, as I love that book series. And yes, I plan to play more, though my schedule's about to get pretty busy as I'm starting a new job.

So... what you’re saying is that my being a noob worked in our favor? I’ll take it.

I didn’t really suspect MisterChris past DP2. Soon as I got the Sensor read, I knew it was only one of the people who didn’t vote, and based on Bearman’s Tracking (which I by then believed), he hadn’t visited anyone in NP2. That made him less sus than Crocodile, who hadn’t done much up to that point, and much less so than Speed, whom I saw as sus back in DP1. So for me, DP3 was when I wrote off MisterChris entirely as town.

That being said, if you didn’t trust my Sensor read (can’t blame you, and depending on when it happened, it could have been twisted by Speed) and you were still wary of Bearman, then MisterChris could have been seen as sus in DP3 for being secretive, though the same could have been said of Crocodile up to that point, so I don’t see him standing out.

Well, I definitely enjoyed my first time playing this. Very much appreciate the feedback. And yeah, I do think the Pie lynch was lazy, though I don't for the life of me understand why Pie was so completely against even a partial claim. I would have unvoted him immediately if he'd just said that he was Katara. I do think Speed was the obvious choice from early on, so yeah, I probably should have CC'd on the Cop claim, though I think that could have made me the target for NP2 and lost us the Sensor read.

Appreciate that. Who knows? Maybe I'll be scum in the next game.

Yeah, that's why I was glad no one tried to push me on my role. I would have likely only partially revealed, and I don't think anyone would have gotten that Aang was the Sensor, but it still would have been a big risk.

I stick with what I said, as I'm quite certain that there is only one scum left in this game and it's Speed. That being said, I can't deny the logic, so I'll function against what I know to be true and stick with the strategy that gives us the greatest odds, especially as we now KNOW that Croc was telling the truth about being Popular. Since there's likely only one Popular in the game, that makes it even less likely to have a scum who is also Popular.

I'm still absolutely certain that it's Speed at this stage. All of my prior doubts about Crocodile are very weak by comparison. I may choose to vote Croc anyway, if only because it does seem like the smartest choice if we exclude everything we already know.

My only problem with this logic is that we don't know what Speed actually is. What if he has a role that guarantees him a victory should we come down to 3? I get that Crocodile is a more likely risk, given that he's already claimed Popular, but wouldn't Speed be the more obvious choice given how he's wielded supposed Cop role throughout?

Well, I have little reason to doubt you, and at this stage, I doubt I could swing opinion towards voting for Speed even if I wanted to, which at the moment, I do not. With Greyparrot basically confirmed, I go with you.

Ah, sorry about that. I just plain forgot I guess, because I do remember now that it was mentioned. My bad. It also fits with the Saulas, so I buy your story.

That being said, and before I make my decision I'd like to get some discussion of this, I'll make note of the fact that Speedrace has, for the third round in a row, targeted someone in his role as "Cop" who we already knew a great deal about based on the information presented in that phase (Lunatic and MisterChris) or in the previous DP (Bearman). That makes me absolutely certain that he is Mafia.

I'm a 1x Sensor. That means it's a one-time use.

The fact that the Mafia still refuse to hit the claimed Cop still has me highly sus of Speedrace. I'd like to hear who he targeted this round, but I have little reason to trust what he's telling us. Any information he provides should be handled with care.

Good targeting on Greyparrot, Bearman. Since we knew that someone was still with Mafia in our group of voters, that just leaves Lunatic, which lends credence to his story. That being said, and maybe I just missed this, but did we get a name for your character, Lunatic? Could be I'm just missing it from previous posts.

It would make sense that Lunatic and Speedrace are the remaining two, and at this point, I think we stand to lose less with the former. I'm still not confident of Crocodile at the moment, but that just makes me a little less certain of Speedrace. I'll hold my vote for the moment, though.

I mean... yes? But also I like that you took the time to make it. I like how you break down what debaters do well and poorly, and I appreciate your taking the time to do it.

I won't vote until we discuss. And, contrary to your statement Greyparrot, it's impossible for it to be BOTH Crocodile and Speedrace. Neither of them were on the vote in DP2, meaning only one of them is scum based on my Sensor.

Yup, think we nailed it.

Appreciate it!

I'm still not sure whether it's Speed or Croc, but I agree with your other calls. Right now, your vote is for Speed. Would you be willing to change to Skittlez?

As I see it, skittlez is the clearer read. We know that, between Greyparrot, Lunatic and skittlez, there are two scum. We have a 2 in 3 chance of hitting the right one, and while I can't get a clear read on Greyparrot (though his claim of Momo, an important but somewhat suspect vanilla character, notwithstanding), I do think that Lunatic is the least likely of these. Skittlez, meanwhile, has claimed a vanilla character, one that isn't part of the main cast (though it seems likely that SupaDudz would cast it - hell, I know I would) and clearly took it too far in the last vote. I'd say he's easily the must sus of the 3, which makes him the easy choice to me. We'd have to misread both Greyparrot and Lunatic to be wrong here, whereas we'd only have to misread either Croc or Speedrace to make a mistake there.

As for Greyparrot's point... I find it hard to believe that MisterChris didn't move last night and was scum. I agree that he's pushing back hard on at least one of the obvious choices, which seems strange to me, but I'd have to disbelieve both Speed and Bearman to agree with you that he's scum. I believe at least one of those (Bearman) accurately tracked him.

I'm tempted to do just that, but also concerned that, if we do confirm, we won't garner much information. We can confirm the role and still not know if he's scum or town. Moreover, if he is town, this would be an easy opportunity for one of the scum to finish him off if they time their vote right.

As I see it, since he's claimed Cop, Speed could be scum and try the following three routes: try to throw us off by reading people who are town as scum, which would automatically implicate him if we lynched that person (he didn't do this), try to throw us off a scum read by claiming that they're town (he may have done this, but that seems unlikely given that both you and Bearman are very likely town), or confirm people who we already believed were town as town so as not to look suspicious. It's also possible that he's just an actual Cop getting actual confirmations, but neither of his choices make a lot of sense as we already thought both you and Bearman were town. The fact that he hasn't been targeted by Mafia is also a little strange, given that he's a clear and present danger to them.

Still, not sure. If skittlez and Croc wasn't so sus for his last vote, I'd be on the "lynch Speed" train.

Yeah, that's part of why I'm still not sure on the Croc read, despite him being the more sus of the two from his behavior in DP2. The fact that both of Speed's targets were basically confirmed town before he confirmed them also doesn't help his case. I think Skittlez is the obvious choice for a lynch this round.

I'd totally be in agreement with your scum picks if it weren't for my Sensor. Between Speed and Croc, only one can be scum, as neither of them were on the lynch train (Croc's vote came in too late to be counted).

Yep, and I agreed with you last round. I don't agree with you in this one.