Live Draft of an argument for a debate

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.

Don't you always use the snowflake method?

First draft using snowflake method

predebate round

google suicide prevention sources to link to prior to beginning of debate

Debate Resolution

1. point out how pro has the burden of proof to literally show how con cannot convince them to kill themselves.

2. explain how I just need to knock down their arguments because I have no burden of proof

3. Address the stupid songs posted and point out that the music is gay

4. point out that my theories can be contradictory and only one needs to make it through for me to win the debate.

5. maybe define some things in a way that is fair but benefits me/ probably not because semantic arguments are gay

argument 1-

Maybe point out that he is already dead or some bullshit. I don't know. Perhaps a conspiracy theory of some sort that forces him to use characters or get triggered and ignore the next 2 arguments. I think I heard some theory that the world already ended and we are all technically in the afterlife. I am not sure.

argument 2-

Maybe discuss some sort of spiritual death. Jesus made a statement like "let the dead care for the dead" when referring to people very much alive so figure out what the hell that means and some how make it relevant or something.

Argument 3-

oxygen is poison theory. SO I just have to convince him to continue breathing and he will be slowly killing himself. Also if i fail to convince him to continue breathing and he stops breathing than I have still convinced him to kill himself through reverse psychology

Argument 4/ conclusion

conclude everything but also mention how we are technically dying since we are born. this allows me to expand on this point in the beginning of round 2 whether pro addresses it or not.

The moment we are born we start to die. Our cells start dividing until they reach the hayflick limit and cannot divide anymore. So even if my words convince pro to go on, I have still convinced him and encouraged him to continue the process of dying which is just a long way of saying I convinced him to die.

This is very creative. Conservatives invented this meme because liberals were starting to use trigger warnings and had comfort rooms in college and then the leftwing is so intelligent that they just say it right back. Wow you guys are so creative and good with memes. The term clown world is starting to spread through public discourse more and more in response leftist insanity. You guys are so creative I can see the response right now. I open up facebook and some liberal relative to own the conservatives posts children being separated from parents at the border with text that exclaims "Clown world". You guys, how will we ever keep up with you in meme warfare.

now i find a conspiracy podcast on the world ending in 2012 for inspiration or maybe see if the why files on youtube covers this topic and have some fun. before moving to argument 2

I might have to narrow it to just that argument if I want to keep it. It takes a lot of characters

Next Draft

Here is the final draft and now you can see the kind of hap hazard way these things are put together https://www.debateart.com/debates/5329-con-cannot-convince-pro-to-kill-himself?argument_number=2

Do you guys build arguments this way at all or are your thoughts usually more organized?

My argument prep is usually a mess of half-considered points to start. I'll list a set of points that I know I want to make and a set that I'm considering, then go track down support for all of them. If I can't find the kind of support I'm looking for, I get rid of the point. So my early prep looks like a couple of bullet points of my text, several links below each, and maybe a snippet taken from the ones I think support my case best. Then I'll go back and write out my thoughts on definitions and burdens before I flesh out each point so that I know the direction I'm taking. 

That doesn't sound terribly different to what I did here. Except I didn't care where my bullet points would take me. 

Yeah, it doesn't seem terribly different. I'll usually end up focusing on three points in the end. Gives me more opportunity to expand on those points rather than just doing a bunch of small ones.

I generally don't write in a very structured way - I simply think of the most convincing points, then find a way to include as many as possible in a debate. So my process might look like this:

1. Analyze the topic from a debater's point of view - are there any obvious solutions? Loopholes? Weak points? 

2. Analyze the topic from a potential voter's point of view - what would I need to show to convince a potential voter who knows nothing about the topic? Do some potential arguments require excessive exposition?

3. Outline potential arguments - make a list of things I could argue.

4. Rough research - Google around for a bit. If I can't find a significant amount of reliable sources in favor of my argument, then I'll drop it.

5. Draft potential arguments - write random argumentative crap. Usually filled with excessive amounts of commas, dashes, and condescension, because that's my usual writing style.

6. Add in sources - Go through all the claims which obviously need some sort of source, then put in the first source I find. I usually don't worry too much about the reliability of the sources if it's a claim that can't really be objected to.

7. Add in definitions, burdens, topic analysis - Unlike some other people, I think they're nice to have, but not really essential. It's good for keeping the debate on track.

8. Edit and revise: Make everything neater, tone down the aggressiveness, keep things really clean. My guiding rule is that if I had 5 minutes to read the entire argument, could I elucidate the main points afterward?

9. Cut until I reach the character limit: I usually pay attention to the character limit, but not that much. Generally I try to keep it not over 10% over the character limit by the time I've finished step 7. At this point, I cut down fluff (usually conclusions or introductions are the first to go), look for opportunities for abbreviations, and remove extraneous analysis that I feel is implied by common sense.

10. Organize: Add in sections, sub-sections, bullet points, etc.

This whole process might take around 1 hour if I'm in a hurry, up to 5 hours if I'm trying really hard. Usually somewhere in the middle.