How is oromagi undefeated?

How did this happen?

The person has I think 56 wins and no ties or losses.  How did this happen?

• The number one factor is forfeits.  In 57 debates I have never forfeited once- a characteristic largely shared by winning debaters.  Any regular voter on this site will confirm that the majority of wins on this site aren't won so much as lost by forfeitures.
  
• Before accepting a debate, study your opponent's record (on DART and DDO).  If the debater
  
• Demonstrates debate experience
  
• Makes arguments in a highly organized or persuasive fashion
  
• seems particularly knowledgeable about the topic, or
  
• never forfeits
  

• Arguments are less than 50% of the possible voter points awarded.  You can actually outargue your opponent every time and still have a losing record (look at Virtuoso's debates for an example of this).
  
• Make a point of being nicer to your opponent than your opponent is to you (if only the forums followed this rule).  If your opponent goes low, do not retaliate.   Wait until the final round and then coolly request a point.
  
• Make a point of having more sources than your opponent.  Wikipedia is the finest artifact the internet has ever produced, use Wikipedia liberally for the conventional wisdom on any topic.  ONLY use sources that rate very high or high on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com  Peer reviewed scholarship typically offers the best evidence and most sophisticated thinking on any point.  I spend a totally unreasonable amount of research time trying to understand technical papers way over my head.
  
• Using an opponent's sources against her is a major advantage.  Scour every opposing source for arguments that support your case.
  
• I'm actually pretty bad at re-reading my arguments for spelling and grammar.  The more I re-read my stuff, the less confident I become in my choices and I get lost in (mostly counter-productive) rewrites,  but my first draft grammar is pretty good and spellchecker gets the majority of the misspellings.  Nevertheless, I'd recommend that you re-read your arguments for legibility and comprehension.  Your argument is useless if voters can't read it- make a point of demonstrating better spelling and grammar than  your opponent.
  
• If there are serious grammatical or spelling errors in the title, take the debate.
  
• Read and use the DART and DDO debate guides and advice.  I like Ragnar's debate style best so I go back to his guide most often. 
  
• If you are making a debate, always define terms, concepts and BoP to your advantage.  This is the instigator's main advantage.  A contender's main advantages are opponent selection and the last word- which far outweighs the instigator's advantage.  The best way to counter this advantage is to set terms that no superior debater would accept or at least terms that must be objected to, cutting into the opponent's word count.
  
• I suspect logicae would object to this tactic based on a recent debate definition: "BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)"  As a voter, I have awarded many wins to debaters who I knew were advocating wrong and even dishonest positions based on the strength of the argument.  The pursuit of truth is always admirable but offers little advantage in winning debates.
  
• Personally, I think the notion of dual burdens is bullshit.  Debates were traditionally practice for law and politics.  In law and politics, the question is always binary- pass/fail, guilty/ not guilty.  Dual burdens suggests that the instigator must prove one thesis and the contender must develop a second, opposing thesis and prove that which creates four possible outcomes-
  
• /A proven B unproven/,
  
• /A unproven B proven/,
  
• /A proven B proven/,
  
• /A unproven B unproven/. 
  
• Many theses don't have a true opposite or have multiple true opposites.  Furthermore, the opposing thesis is almost never explicitly stated.  The contender is left proving some ill-defined negation.  Dual burdens makes for fuzzy, unfocused debates with much cloudier outcomes.  It's like saying the state must prove the defendant guilty and also the defendant must prove himself innocent. 
  
• A good debater always suggests that the other guy has the entire burden of proof while also arguing as if the burden is entirely hers to prove.
  
• Any debater who instigates a debate but then fails to set terms in the long description or R1 has handed the contender all of the main advantages.  Look for debaters who operate this way and exploit those advantages.
  
• Try hard to be interesting for readers.  Unfortunately, most people will never read your debate but you can make a friend of the few who do by trying to write appealing, creative arguments.  Try hard to be original- I try to list all the arguments I can think of before I start researching other people's arguments.  Typically, other people's arguments are better informed than mine but an original argument supported by the facts is more satisfying to write and forces the opponent to think of an original defense.
  
• Depending on the debate, it usually helps to give voters a concise reason for voting for you at the end of the debate.  Voters are required to defend their votes so giving them a plausible reason or two they can cite or paraphrase while voting for you makes their job easier and their vote that much more likely.
  

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1879/there-will-be-more-cars-after-20-years-than-now opponent's didn't debate seriously

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1195/life-is-created-by-god oromagi won this one merely because pro had to prove that god exists and creates life, which is too difficult for anyone to prove at the moment

I took the debate at a wrong time and personally had to strong of a claim. With what's going on now, there could be more of a case

The debate system however does suffer from the very voting system itself. A vote in favor of an argument neither validates nor informs its credibility

--> @oromagi

Wasn't noob sniping generally frowned upon in DDO?

Okay, but do you think noob sniping is ok, morally?

The most relevant framework is the DebateArt.com Code of Conduct which places no restrictions on debates by relative experience.  I can't think of any overarching moral principle that might prohibit such engagement or over-ride the CoC.

Does accepting a debate from a newbie constitute undue coercion or pressure?  No.  In most cases, the new member has initiated the debate and had the chance to set the rules of engagement.  I try hard to follow the initiators rules even if I think those rules are unwarranted.  Likewise, if I initiate the debate, I define my expectations and  any acceptance of the debate should include acceptance of those terms.

Beyond the obvious educational benefits, I think early engagement between experienced and inexperienced debaters sets a higher level of expectation for effort and quality argument here than on other sites. 

Obviously, there's no enforcement of this dynamic- just a gentle promotion of the idea that if you're just going to create debates to fuck around, users like RM and myself will work to extract personal benefit while giving a slacker or troll as little satisfaction as possible.

Considering that the entire enterprise is practice & exercise, I see little chance for real harm.  All practice, all exercise in any skill set is generally beneficial

Are the costs and benefits distributed equally?  In the long term, yes.  Nobody has an equal right to win here nor should they.  Yes, more experience and greater effort provide an advantage  in debate and a newbie might not have the same appreciation for those advantages but that appreciation is usually born out of defeat and seldom gained by an easy win.

Besides, there is always the balancing benefit of the underdog effect and the disadvantage that familiarity breeds contempt for long time players.

In most competitions, we have little moral problem with matching rookies vs. veterans.  A good argument might be made for making baseball like minor leagues but in a such a hypothetical, this minor league debater would never have made it to the higher rungs.

I take it that you think there is some moral dilemma here.  Care to make that case?

Nor should it.  We are practicing at debate, not reinforcing our own personal bias.  If I had to vote by validity alone I'd often vote against my own arguments. As I say above, we don't even have to win the argument to win the debate under the  present system.  I'd like to see a vote system that rewards cogent formatting and excellence in composition.  I'd also like to see a degree of difficulty modifier.

I'd point out that AKmath is a very smart debater who just doesn't seem to care much about completion.  Mharman has many excellent debates on DDO so I'm lucky he gave up when he did.   

I am also well aware of your excellence as a debater so in principle I ought not to consider a debate vs. you without some major advantage in argument- an advantage which I doubt you'd accept.  In practice, however, talented debaters are more fun to fight.  I like my position on all three of the debates you mention although my arguments could use some improvement (for which I'm sure you'd provide motivation).  My mom died last week and I have a few busy weeks of arrangements and packing up her things etc. ahead  but let's try to find something to debate in July.

I value the respect you offered, thanks for it.