Total topics: 12
I am going to alter my process for argument creation, but it might be useful to see my process in each of it's stages. This is the debate I am going to formulate arguments for https://www.debateart.com/debates/5329-con-cannot-convince-pro-to-kill-himself
The title of the debate is; Con cannot convince pro to kill himself
No description is seen I am in round one and crafting a response. I am going to show you how it is done using the snowflake method and show the first draft of the argument in the next post.
For a more complex topic, I will likely create a video and show you the process live or at least what can be shown of the process. I will also show you the system I am going to replace it with but for now just look at the various draft stages starting with stage one.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Does anybody see any flaws or down sides from that?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
You are allowed to post on this no matter what, as long as you obey the following rules:
1) You do not debate topics inside this actual thread, instead you create a thread or debate instead that you're welcome to link to here.
2) If you dislike a topic perhaps finding it irritating, comedic or offensive, you either keep it to yourself or discuss it privately with others. No drama here about things.
3) You keep topics suggested within site rules and not veiled attacks against particular members.
4) You state whether your intent is to debate it, which side you prefer to debate and/or whether you want to vote on it. If you would only debate/vote if it's within a certain range of characters or time-away-from now, feel free to specify that.
This is a very obvious solution I am sure many regular debaters and voters have thought 'should' exist but didn't really make happen yet. I am not some 'genius' for this, it is just going to become an official thread where willing and eager voters meet willing and eager debaters so that debaters can engage on topics at times when the voters interested in those topics are available to vote, without needing it to be 'judge debate' format that has to be unrated or any other such complication.
You should stick to topics that count as Rated debates. No 'rap battles between' or such things here. This is designed to help actual quality debating increase here since the main reason it doesn't is that debaters including me get faster 'burnout' as we realise most debates come down to either a lazy vote or someone 'saving' the other debater from the lazy vote etc.
Please do not say you are interested in a topic here, just for the sake of 'sparking ideas'. This is to be actual topics that if you saw them debated, you'd either engage with as a debater or as a voter (or both).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I can no longer optimally gamble on noobsniping.
Despite what Oromagi and some say, once you're in the 1800s you gain way too little from wins vs noobs to make the risk vs reward healthy. I can no longer healthily hope to use my level of participation to carry me past a loss here and there. It's just not optimal.
I want regular clashes vs debaters nearer to 1600 than 1500. I will take you up on challenges, let me know. I'll require long Rounds, I want proper, decent clashes that let real life healthily interact with tough debates.
This is going to be beyond anything DDO ever had from any debater. I am going to be doing quality debate after quality debate, 1-week or 2-week Rounds, no mercy, no excuses proper clashing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I understand the following:
- This site is on life support. The dead userbase do not enjoy voting.
- Voters tend to prefer you attacking opponents' ideas so much so that offense is defense because if the opponent stays defensive, voters either do not vote or vote against the defender.
- To launch successful attacks, stick to semantics, get the opponent furious as you gaslight them about what they are really trying to say and tell voters that the opponent has dropped points, constantly, even if the point is shit.
- Learn and practise this method so much so that one can do it across 18 debates at once pote tially. Just read what the opponent says, link it wrongly to definitions, write antithetical contentions and syllogisms even if rebuttals are ruled out. As in make your constructive inherently attack theirs 'accidentally, and never waste effort preemptively defending.
- Over time, you will find that the impulsive members who have the passion to vote, vote for you because they fall in love with your way of attacking.
- Avoid accepting challenges from tough opponents, let them come to you, learn to debate ordinary topics ridicupously aggressive and well. Nearly plagiarise ideas from the cookie cutter round 1s and then just stick to pure offense.
I predict this approach is actually the best.
If you notice, all bad debaters have different things making them bad but all good-rated debaters here are either accidentally or intentionally adhering to this ethos, just focusing less on quantity (except Novice).
I will be surprised if my analysis is proven wrong. Do expect some losses incoming, after that, watch me annihilate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
It will help you both in casual and competitive debating but is definitely primarily about winning online debates, whether in forums or life.
To prove I am not all talk, I finally am climbing the leaderboards here. I always could have done so skill-wise but many people were intentionally leaving debates tied and the site just didn't have enough going on for periods as well as my real life being busier.
I will take 2 students at a time and it will work as a combination of live coaching (since this site has not ruled that out) during debates and lessons/sessions.
I will like if you have Discord if you want to be a long-term student (more than just 1-2 weeks) and will prove that I get results by how my students do, it will not be a secret who my students are and I will not debate them or allow them to debate each other during the coaching.
I require the following criteria:
1. You were not blocked by me on the website in the past 40 days.
2. You have proven that you have the raw level of activity on the website to be a decently active debater, I need you to be active as I won't get paid, my reward is you doing well as my student.
3. You do not fuck around and troll me thinking I'm all talk or that my methods are bullshit. You do that more than once, you are terminated as a student I won't make a big deal nor will I care if people think I'm petty.
4. You are fluent in the language English.
5. You can participate (not necessarily in live IMs) in regular intervals for at least 2 full weeks or very intensive for 1 week depending how busy I am that week.
6. You do not think we are friends (necessarily) in any shape or form, you don't ask me for any personal details and I give you the same courtesy.
I will not reveal the syllabus publicly and it will be tailored to each student anyway. I will give you homework and teach you things at times that are tweaked to the current climate of voters and debaters.
What I am doing, in competitive gaming is stuff people pay good money for, you can think it's a joke or whatever but I'm doing it for free. I am serious about it if you are.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
The art of debating is not to be openminded to delusions being true and truths being false, the art lies in making your audience fall victim to that and to end up believing your opponent's ideas and opinions are brutally flawed (regardless of your own being true).
My approach has as a foundational idea that debating is far more about destroying and mitigating the opponent's ideas than it is about having good ideas yourself. Once in a while you will lose a debate by following this philosophy of debating but it's not about winning nonstop, it's about playing the game of debating like a bloody canvas on which all blood shed by you had to be shed and all strikes you direct at the enemy demand a lot of time and energy from them to defend against.
I will never be the best debater at just writing a tonne of points/text and coming out a champion from that alone. I am the one to annihilate ten lines of what you wrote with one sentence. It is not easy to debate like this, it just looks easy because it revolves around efficient, minimised effort in actual written debate (the real effort is in the thinking and strategising).
If you step to me in the debating arena, know that I am seasoned, tactical and will rip your ideas to pieces while giving you ideas that are slanted so that you don't quite know how to fight them without putting in a lot of text and effort.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Please feel free to contribute but bear in mind that if your suggestion is too silly or unpopular, it's not going to be picked up, feel free to quote others' suggestions that you liked or disliked and say why you like or dislike the topic.
Please avoid any direct help other than to point out a severe flaw in wording of a resolution that rigs it for one side, in your eyes.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I'm curious to hear which debates required you all to do the most research, the most thinking, revision, etc... Please feel free to upload a link to the debate if you can and if you'd like!
For me, the debate I put the most effort into was a prepared resolution for two different rounds of a debate tournament. It was something like "THBT The Chinese System is Better Equipped to Face the Challenges of the Future Than the American System", and a few weeks to prepare arguments for pro and con. So naturally, I made 35 pages worth of research and arguments, researched statistics, read articles, made my own datasets, wrote out a more in depth opinion on individualism and collectivism than I have ever read in my entire life, and it paid off.
Me and my debate partner would've went to the provincials from that tournament, but we got screwed over by a judge in the 3rd round (there were only 4 rounds) and he absolutely tanked our score. I'm still proud of how much effort I put into it, though!
Me and my debate partner would've went to the provincials from that tournament, but we got screwed over by a judge in the 3rd round (there were only 4 rounds) and he absolutely tanked our score. I'm still proud of how much effort I put into it, though!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I think we love debating because we're toxic people through genuinely no fault of our own.
Can you show me somebody in real life who loves debating that isn't a toxic person in a fair few ways?
I was no exception to this rule. I probably still am not, I'm working on it.
I think debating is a natural interest and hobby of someone who is very prone to habitually disagree and nitpick at things. I was that guy for a fair amount of my life. I changed how readily I showed it IRL but never changed the core personality and it was only recently that I appreciated how much effort I put into arguing when otherwise agreeing and even faking a polite white-lie-support of something could just so much easier handle the scenario.
If we go through life nonstop arguing it gets addictive, not just because we are good at it but because we feel 'real' amongst a buch of 'fakes'. The problem is that this makes us enemies, nobody likes a skilled debater in real life. Can you imagine Oromagi, Ragnar and Ramshutu or MisterChris or whoever just arguing the crap out of everyone in their workplace that disagreed with them? Nobody would end up liking them... That's the issue with it.
I have spent so much of my life loving to argue and finally now I realise I basically convinced 0 people of anything... Okay maybe 2 or 3 but come on, that's at the sake of alienating far more.
What good is it to debate? I even do it with etiquette and that just makes more enemies as then I seem fake about it. I've never once seen positive outcome from a real life application of my debating skills, like literally never. It's only helped me when another similar to me tries to take me on in that way and how rare is that? Like... twice a year someone maybe really, really wants a debate on something with me but that's about it. We live in a world that's still ruled by jungle law, we're just primates wearing suits and ties to hide the reality of it. If you piss off the wrong alpha, it doesn't matter how logical you are, you'll get alienated in that place. That's life and it's irrational, unfair and shit but what I have come to realise and truly appreciate is that what's even more shit than that would be a world where we all argued 24/7... nothing would get done.
I'm starting to wonder if I was wrong about everything, like ever taking part in a community like this and ever liking to argue. It's caused me more issues than I'd like to admit, In hindsight I do believe lost a few real long-term friendships predominantly due to this habit and craving of mine to argue and debate.
I've just learned to shut my mouth when I disagree and think hard of the impact of my disagreement before opening it (my mouth) but that doesn't really settle the unrest in me at the stupidity of what's unfurling in the (to me) childlike disagreement between grown adults that should have a higher capacity to reason than what they convey.
Is that what life is like for you other skilled debaters? I really dislike it but I accept it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Like when a bladder is full.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This is a thread where if you post in it, I will describe your strategy of debating to you in a comedic martial art metaphor manner.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com