the truth will not become clear during the dispute itself, because I cannot turn back time and give far-fetched arguments after the dispute
My opponent assumes that presenting arguments or analyzing them is same as reaching the truth.
He ultimately didnt prove that doing so will ever get one closer to truth.
My opponent assumes that you can turn back time after a text dispute, but not after a verbal dispute.
Recording verbal debate allows you to turn back time and give arguments after the dispute.
If not, then you cannot present arguments even after text debate, and you have character limit there too. My opponent assumes that these limitations wouldnt prevent truth, but they would.
But in verbal, you can reach the truth by recording it and then slowly studying it. Verbal also takes less time, so we can say that verbal takes us to the truth faster.
You are giving arguments regarding a topic that you have come up with for yourself; they in no way correlate with the original topic of discussion. Moreover, I even asked for arguments in the direction that “the voice format of the discussion is more dominant in the context of clarifying the truth” when you talk about how your words may be perceived by others.
My opponent assumes that people would be more likely to read long texts than simply listen to verbal discussion.
However, most people wouldnt even read those long texts, where most people would listen to short verbal discussion.
Oratorical arguments are more suitable for debate and are not dominant in clarifying the truth. Otherwise, scientific disputes would be conducted orally, and not in writing, as they are now.
Scientific disputes are often conducted verbally.
Further, my opponent forgets that any kind of text dispute either comes with character limit either it doesnt.
If it does come with character limit, then truth cannot be said completely.
If it doesnt come with character limit, then anyone who writes too much would either overwhelm others making them unable to respond to all either others wouldnt read it.
Since my opponent talked about disputes with time limit, its obvious that it takes more time to type and read whats typed than to talk.
So with equal time, verbal dispute wins over text dispute.
My opponent assumed that in verbal dispute you wouldnt have time to analyze, where in text dispute you would.
But this is only because my opponent assumed unequal time in text and verbal dispute, giving unfair treatment.
When given same amount of time, since talking and listening is faster than typing and reading, it follows that either more points can be made in verbal, either there is more time to analyze arguments in verbal, when both verbal and text disputes last same amount of time.
Further, my opponent didnt say who reaches the truth better. Masses arent really readers. They are more of a listeners, so verbal debate is better for them.
Just how much forfeits can one get away with?
It is through him that I translate the text.
Google translate does allow people to debate in any language. Its a miracle of technology.
Возможно, просто я пишу на русском, а вы, видимо, – на английском.
Sorry, I forgot what the topic was. It happens when topic is in different language.
Все аргументы оппонента склоняются к другой теме (о том, что важно быть визуально правым, что важно только победить в споре/дискуссии), хотя изначальной темой дискуссии являлось то, что текстовый формат проведения таковой преобладает над голосовым в контексте выяснения истины или более истинных аргументов оппонентов по факту.
Единственное преимущество устного спора заключается в том, что можно перебивать собеседника. Очевидно, что это не способствует настоящему аргументированному обсуждению и играет на руку тому, кто лучше кричит, а не тому, кто прав.
Well, text format has many advantages.